Bhashya
स्वप्नविज्ञानग्राह्यं घटपटादिवस्तु; स्वप्नविज्ञानव्यतिरेकेणा-नुपलम्भात् स्वप्नघटप्रदीपादेः स्वप्नविज्ञानमात्रता अवग-म्यते, तथा जागरितेऽपि घटप्रदीपादेः जाग्रद्विज्ञानव्यति-रेकेण अनुपलम्भात् जाग्रद्विज्ञानमात्रतैव युक्ता भवितुम्;तस्मात् नास्ति बाह्योऽर्थः घटप्रदीपादिः, विज्ञानमात्रमेव तुसर्वम्; तत्र यदुक्तम्, विज्ञानस्य व्यतिरिक्तावभास्यत्वात्विज्ञानव्यतिरिक्तमास्ति ज्योतिरन्तरं घटादेरिवेति, तन्मि-थ्या, सर्वस्य विज्ञानमात्रत्वे दृष्टान्ताभावात् ।न, यावत्तावदभ्युपगमात्— न तु बाह्योऽर्थः भवता एकान्तेनैव ना-भ्युपगम्यते; ननु मया नाभ्युपगम्यत एव- न, विज्ञानं घ-टः प्रदीप इति च शब्दार्थपृथक्त्वात् यावत्, तावदपि बा-ह्यार्थान्तरम् अवश्यमभ्युपगन्तव्यम्; विज्ञानादर्थान्तरं वस्तुन चेदभ्युपगम्यते, विज्ञानं घटः पट इत्येवादीनां शब्दानाम्एकार्थत्वे पर्यायशब्दत्वं प्राप्नोति; तथा साधनानां फलस्यच एकत्वे, साध्यसाधनभेदोपदेशशास्त्रानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गः; त-त्कर्तुः अज्ञानप्रसङ्गो वा ।किंचान्यत्— विज्ञानव्यतिरे-केण वादिप्रतिवादिवाददोषाभ्युपगमात्; न हि आत्मवि-ज्ञानमात्रमेव वादिप्रतिवादिवादः तद्दोषो वा अभ्युपगम्यते,निराकर्तव्यत्वात्, प्रतिवाद्यादीनाम्; न हि आत्मीयं विज्ञानंनिराकर्तव्यमभ्युपगम्यते, स्वयं वा आत्मा कस्यचित्; तथा
In plain words
Take dream: the pot or cloth you dream of is only ever found inside the dreaming itself — you never catch the dream-pot standing apart from your dream-cognition — and from that we conclude the dream-pot is nothing but that cognition. Fair enough, says the idealist; but the same holds while you're awake. You never catch a waking pot or lamp apart from your waking cognition either, so by the very same logic, waking objects should be nothing but waking cognition too. There's no world out there at all — just cognition, through and through. And that earlier proof of yours, that cognition must be lit by some further light because it's illumined by something distinct, the way a pot is lit by a lamp? That falls apart right along with the world, because once everything is just cognition, there's no pot left anywhere to serve as your example. Here's the answer: that pot-and-lamp example was only ever granted for the sake of argument, within strict limits — you never actually managed to deny an external world outright. But I do deny it completely, the idealist insists. No, you don't, and here's why: the moment you use the words 'cognition,' 'pot,' 'lamp' as three different words, you're already committed to three different things they stand for. Deny that, and 'cognition,' 'pot,' 'cloth' collapse into mere synonyms for the same nothing — which is absurd. It's exactly like ritual means and their fruit: treat them as one and the same thing, and all the scripture that carefully distinguishes goal from method becomes either pointless or the work of someone who didn't know what they were talking about. And there's more: think about what actually happens in a real argument. A debater and their opponent both treat the debate, and its errors, as something more than just one person's private cognition — nobody debates their own thoughts, because an opponent has to be a real someone, capable of being answered and refuted. Nobody ever treats their own thinking that way, and nobody treats their own self as something anyone else gets to refute at will either. In just the same way...
Close to the Sanskrit
The thing such as pot, cloth and the like is graspable within dream-cognition; because of the non-apprehension of the dream-pot, dream-lamp and the like apart from dream-cognition, it is understood that they consist in nothing but dream-cognition. Likewise, even in the waking state, because of the non-apprehension of the pot, lamp and the like apart from waking-cognition, it would be equally warranted for there to be nothing but waking-cognition; therefore there is no external object such as pot or lamp — rather, everything is cognition alone. As for what was said there — that, because cognition is illumined by something distinct, there exists another light distinct from cognition, just as with the pot and the like — that is false, because, everything being merely cognition, there is no [surviving] example. Answer: No, because the concession was made only within a limited scope. It is not the case that you have denied an external object absolutely. Objection: But I do not accept one at all! Answer: No, because, insofar as there is a distinctness of meaning among the words 'cognition,' 'pot,' 'lamp,' to that very extent a further external object must necessarily be admitted. If a thing that is a different object from cognition is not admitted, then, given the sameness of meaning of words such as 'cognition,' 'pot,' 'cloth,' they would come to be mere synonyms. Likewise, if the means and the fruit [of ritual action] were held to be one, there would follow the absurd consequence of the pointlessness of scripture that teaches the distinction between the goal and the means, or else the consequence that its author was ignorant. Moreover, another point: from the fact that proponent and opponent accept debate and its faults apart from mere cognition — for indeed debate between a proponent and an opponent, or its fault, is not accepted to be merely one's own cognition, because the opponent and the others must be things capable of being refuted; for indeed one's own cognition is not accepted as something to be refuted, nor is one's own self, by anyone. Likewise—