पराभ्युपगमेन प्रसङ्गापादनम् एतत् पूर्वपक्षवादी करोति ---- प्रसङ्गविपर्ययलाभो मे भविष्यति ---- इति । तत्र आत्मवादी नित्यत्वम् आत्मन इत्थं ब्रूते ---- इह कालो नाम इदंभावविशिष्टस्य विशेषणताम् अवलम्बमानः तं विशिष्टीकुर्वन् तत्संकोचात् अनित्यं संपादयति । आत्मनश्च चित्स्वभावत्वात् इदम् ---- इति प्रथनाभावेन विशेष्यत्वं नास्ति , विशेषणविशेष्यभावो हि योजकायत्तः , न च स्वप्रकाशे योजकान्तरम् अस्ति । स इत्थं ब्रुवाणः पर्यनुयुज्यते ---- ज्ञानमपि तर्हि स्वप्रकाशम् इति तत्रापि एषैव वार्ता इति तदपि कस्मात् न नित्यम् ? न च द्वयोर्नित्ययोः कश्चित् संबन्धः , कार्यकारणभावो हि असौ नान्यः , तत आत्मनो ज्ञानं शक्तिः इति अवसन्नम् अदः । अथ न स्वप्रकाशं ज्ञानं तर्हि परस्यापि अदो न प्रकाशः , स्वप्रकाशरूपावेशनं हि असौ परस्य विदधत् बोधः प्रकाशो भवति परस्यापि , ततः स्वप्रकाशताशून्यो न असौ अर्थस्य प्रकाशः स्यात् , भावान्तरवत् ॥७॥
जडोऽप्यसौ इत्थम् अर्थस्य प्रकाशो भविष्यति ---- इति सांख्यमतम् आशङ्कते
अथार्थस्य यथा रूपं धत्ते बुद्धिस्तथात्मनः ।
चैतन्यम् ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ ॥ ८ [§०§]
In plain words
The one who argues the draws out this absurd consequence on the ground of what the other side accepts, thinking: “I shall gain the reversal of the absurd consequence.” There, the one who holds there is an states its permanence in this way: “Here what is called time takes on the role of a qualifier of what is marked by this-ness; qualifying it, it narrows it and so makes it impermanent. But the , since is its own nature, does not spread out as a ‘this’, and so it is not something to be qualified; for the relation of qualifier and qualified depends on something that joins them, and in what is self-luminous there is no other joiner.” He who speaks so is challenged in turn: “Then knowledge too is self-luminous, so the same story holds there as well; why, then, is it not permanent too?” And between two permanent things there is no relation at all, for that relation is the relation of cause and effect and no other; so the claim that knowledge is the ’s has sunk. But if knowledge is not self-luminous, then it is not the of anything else either; for an awareness becomes the of another as well by making that other enter into its own self-luminous form. So, empty of self-luminousness, it could not be the of the object, any more than any other thing.
He raises as a doubt the view, that though it is insentient it will be the of the object in this way:
Now if, just as takes on the form of the object, so it takes on the of the