Verse 257-258

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

नीलोत्पलादिसम्बन्धाद्दर्पणस्फटिकादयः ।
तच्छायाविभ्रमोत्पादहेतवः क्षणभङ्गिनः ॥ २५७ ॥
सोपधानेतरावस्थ एक एवेति सर्वदा ।
तच्छायस्तद्वियुक्तो वा स दृश्येतान्यथा पुनः ॥ २५८ ॥

nīlotpalādisambandhāddarpaṇasphaṭikādayaḥ |
tacchāyāvibhramotpādahetavaḥ kṣaṇabhaṅginaḥ || 257 ||
sopadhānetarāvastha eka eveti sarvadā |
tacchāyastadviyukto vā sa dṛśyetānyathā punaḥ || 258 ||

All such things as the mirror, the rock-crystal and the like are themselves in perpetual flux; and when they become connected with the blue lotus and such objects,—they become causes of bringing about the illusion regarding their reflections.—If that were not so, everyone of those things would be always one and the same,—when in contact with the said objects, as well as when not in contact with them; and as such it should be seen either as always with its reflection or always without its reflection.—(257-258)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

It has been argued (under Text 244, above) that—“Just as the clean Mirror or Rock-crystal, etc. etc.”—It is shown in the following Text that what has been alleged there would not be possible if the Mirror, etc. were eternal and always of the same form:—[see verses 257-258 above]

The Rock-crystal, the Mirror and the like are things that are in a state of perpetual flux,—undergoing destruction every moment; and when they come into contact with the Blue Lotus and such things, they become masters in the producing of illusions (regarding the reflections of these things, which have no real existence, and whose Cognition, therefore, must be illusory, wrong).

If that were not so,—i.e. if it could reflect the image without being momentary,—then it would have to be admitted that the Mirror in contact with the object is the same as that not in contact with it; so that, even in the absence of the Blue and other reflected things, the reflection of these would he perceptible, as the reflector will not have abandoned its previous character (when in contact with the object);—or, conversely, even when in contact with the object, it would be seen without the said reflections; as its form would not be different from its previous state (when not in contact with the object).

This argument serves to set aside the possibility of all reflections in general in any such reflecting substances as the Mirror and the like,—under the view that things are not-momentary.—(257-258)