2144 Verse 3506-3507

Original

स्यान्मतं यो व्यतीतोऽध्वा स शून्यस्तव(सर्व?)दर्शिना ।
कालत्वात्तद्यथाकालो वर्त्तमानः प्रतीयते ॥ ३५०६ ॥
संदिग्धव्यतिरेकित्वाद्युक्तमेतन्न साधनम् ।
वर्त्तमानश्च कालोऽयं तेन शून्यो न निश्चितः ॥ ३५०७ ॥

syānmataṃ yo vyatīto’dhvā sa śūnyastava(sarva?)darśinā |
kālatvāttadyathākālo varttamānaḥ pratīyate || 3506 ||
saṃdigdhavyatirekitvādyuktametanna sādhanam |
varttamānaśca kālo’yaṃ tena śūnyo na niścitaḥ || 3507 ||

The following might be urged—“The period that is past was devoid of the omniscient person,—because it was a period of time,—like the present time which is actually perceived”.—This argument however, is not right, as its contrary is open to doubt; inasmuch as there can be no certainty regarding the present time being devoid of the omniscient person.—(3506-3507)

Kamalaśīla

The following Texts anticipate and answer the Opponent’s argument.—[see verses 3506-3507 above]

The argument of the other party may be thus formulated—“The Past must be regarded as devoid of the Omniscient Person,—because it is a period of time,—like the Present Time”.

In this argument, inasmuch as nothing has been adduced to show that the contrary of the Probandum is impossible,—there will always be a doubt regarding the existence of such a contrary, and consequently, the Reason would remain ‘Inconclusive The Corroborative Instance also would be ‘Inadmissible’, as the presence of the Probandum would he doubtful.—(3506-3507)