आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

अल्पीयस्यास्यमल्पीयो दर्पणे प्रतिभाति हि ।
विपर्यस्तश्च वृक्षादिर्जलमग्नः प्रतीयते ॥ २५८८ ॥
दर्पणाभिमुखं बिबं नैवं तु प्रतिबिम्बकम् ।
जलाद्यन्तर्गतं चेदं बिम्बं त्वारादवस्थितम् ॥ २५८९ ॥
आश्रयानुविधानेन स्थूलसूक्ष्मादिभेदि च ।
प्रतिबिम्बं न बिम्बं तु नातो हेतोरसिद्धता ॥ २५९० ॥

alpīyasyāsyamalpīyo darpaṇe pratibhāti hi |
viparyastaśca vṛkṣādirjalamagnaḥ pratīyate || 2588 ||
darpaṇābhimukhaṃ bibaṃ naivaṃ tu pratibimbakam |
jalādyantargataṃ cedaṃ bimbaṃ tvārādavasthitam || 2589 ||
āśrayānuvidhānena sthūlasūkṣmādibhedi ca |
pratibimbaṃ na bimbaṃ tu nāto hetorasiddhatā || 2590 ||

In a smaller mirror the face appears as smaller;—the tree reflected in the water appears as upside down, and as sunk in the water; the object reflected in the mirror faces the mirror,—not so its reflected image;—while the reflected image is in the water, the object reflected is far off;—the reflected image always varies with the reflecting surface, as regards its largeness, smallness, etc.,—not so the object reflected.—For these reasons our reason cannot be regarded as ‘inadmissible’.—(2588-2590)

Kamalaśīla

In the following Texts, the author points out that the Reason here put forward cannot be regarded as ‘Inadmissible’:—[see verses 2588-2590 above]:

The reason why this is not true is stated in the following:—[see verse 2587 above]:

In a smaller mirror, the face, though really larger, appears as smaller;—the tree reflected in water is perceived top downward and as sunk in the water;—the face reflected in the mirror is perceived as facing the west;—and in water, as being far off;—similarly in such reflecting media as the Bright Sword and the like, the Reflected Image appears in varying degrees of length, etc. in accordance with the nature of the reflecting medium; and yet the object reflected does not possess the varying length, etc. Thus then, the idea that the cognition of the Reflected Image envisages something different from the Reflected object, cannot be ‘inadmissible’.—(2588-2590)