न शून्यं कथमेतत्स्यान्न प्रकाशः कथं भवेत् । कथं वा न तमोरूपं कथं वा नैव भास्वरम् ॥ २ ॥
na śūnyaṁ kathamētatsyānna prakāśaḥ kathaṁ bhavēt | kathaṁ vā na tamōrūpaṁ kathaṁ vā naiva bhāsvaram || 2 ||
Translation
Then how can it not be void? How is it not light? How is it not of the nature of darkness, and how is it not radiant at all?
Word by word
- na
- not
- śūnyaṁ
- void
- katham
- how
- ētat
- this
- syān
- (syāt) can be
- prakāśaḥ
- light
- kathaṁ
- how
- bhavēt
- can it be
- vā
- or, and
- tamō
- (tamaḥ) darkness
- rūpaṁ
- of the nature of
- ēva
- at all
- bhāsvaram
- radiant
Meaning
The questions follow from the denials of the last sarga. If nothing of form is left, it seems that nothing is left: why then call it "not void"? And light and darkness are the two conditions of whatever is there at all: if it is not light, it should be darkness; if not darkness, it should shine. Another commentary puts Rāma's thought plainly: when everything is destroyed, why is this not a void? When light and darkness are both absent, why is what is left not darkness, or not light? And when everything to be lit has perished, why does the light that remains not at least shine? Rāma is thinking as the mind thinks, in pairs: void or full, light or dark. Vasiṣṭha's answer will take each pair apart.