चैतन्यप्रतिबिम्बयोगे यदि तावत् तत्प्रतिबिम्बकमपि मुख्यं प्रकाशरूपमेव न भवति , तेनापि न किंचित् कृतं स्यात् , न हि प्रतिबिम्बतवह्निपुञ्ज आदर्शो दाह्यं दहेत् । अथ मुख्यप्रकाशरूपमेव तत्प्रतिबिम्बकम् , तत् तर्हि बुद्धेरव्यतिरिक्तम् इति मुख्यप्रकाशरूपैव बुद्धिर्जाता इति । यतो विरुद्धधर्माध्यासात् भीरुभिः एतत् कल्पितम् । स एव पुनः जाज्वल्यमानं निजम् ओजो जृम्भयति , ततश्च सा बुद्धिरेव चिन्मयी स्यात् , किं पुरुषेण । एवम् अर्थप्रतिबिम्बकद्वारेण अर्थमयी ---- इत्यपि आयातो विज्ञानवादः । कुत एतस्याः तद्रूपत्वम् ---- इति , पूर्वकारणपरम्परातः ---- इति उतरं वाच्यम् । एवं सैव चेत् चिद्रूपा , प्राग्वत् नित्यताप्रसङ्गः ; न चेत चिद्रूपस्यापि नित्यता , तर्हि आत्मा न नित्यः कश्चिदस्ति , यस्य ज्ञानं नाम शक्तिः स्यात् इति ज्ञानमात्रमेव अस्ति । यो ऽर्थप्रकाशरूपो बोधो यश्च विकल्पस्मृत्यादिरूपः तावता अर्थव्यवहारसिद्धेः ---- इति प्रसङ्गविपर्ययलाभः ज्ञानं च चित्स्वरूपं चेत् इत्यादेः श्लोकद्वयस्य तात्पर्यम् ॥८॥
एवं ज्ञानं परीक्ष्य क्रियां परीक्षते
क्रियाप्यर्थस्य कायादेस्तत्तद्देशादिजातता ।
नान्यादृष्टेः ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। ॥ §०§
इह परिस्पन्दरूपं तावत् गव्च्छति , चलति, पतति ---- इत्यादि यत् प्रतिभासगोचरम् , तत्र गृहसेशगतदेवदत्तस्वरूपात् अनन्तरं बाह्यदेशवर्तिदेवदत्तस्वरूपम् ---- इत्येतावत् उपलभ्यते , न तु तत्स्वरूपातिरिक्तां कांचित् अन्यां क्रियां प्रतीमः । देवदत्तो दिनं तिष्ठति इत्यत्र तु प्रभातकालाविष्टदेवदत्तस्वरूपं ततः प्रहरकालालिङ्गिततत्स्वरूपम् ---- इत्यादि भाति , दुग्धं परिणमते इत्यत्र मधुरवस्तुरूपम् अम्लवस्तुरूपम् द्रवरूपं कठिनरूपम् ---- इत्यादि । एवं सादृश्याच्च तत्र प्रत्यभिज्ञा भिन्नेऽपि कायकेशनस्वादाविव । देशाकारान्यत्वे तु कालान्यत्वम् अवश्यंभाविदेशकालान्यत्वे ऽपि , स्वरूपस्यैव देशत्वात् , कालभेदे च स्वरूपभेदात् , देशकालाकारा आकार एव यद्यपि पर्यवस्मन्ति , तथापि स्थूलदृष्ट्या अस्ति भेदः इति ते हि भेदेन बौद्धैरुच्यन्ते ---- इति तात्पर्यम् । एवं प्रत्यक्षेण न दृश्यते कचित् क्रिया , तद्भावात् न तत्पूर्वकेण अनुमानेन , कार्यं च प्रामप्राप्त्याद्युत्तरक्षणरूपं तद्देशवस्तुरूपादि इति कार्यान्यथानुपपत्त्यापि न सा कल्प्या । एवं प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्यां तस्या अदृष्टिः ---- इति साधकप्रमाणाभाव उक्तः ।
बाधकमपि आह
॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। न साप्येका क्रमिकैकस्य चोचिता ॥ इप्क्_१,२।९ ॥
In plain words
Where it is joined with the reflection of , then, to begin with, if that reflection itself is not in the primary sense, nothing would be done by it either; for a mirror in which a heap of fire is reflected would not burn what is there to be burnt. But if that reflection is in the primary sense, then it is not separate from , and so itself has become in the primary sense. Yet it was for fear of just this, of contradictory properties laid on one thing, that the timid devised the theory. And that same laying on of contradictory properties spreads out its own blazing strength once more; and so itself would be made of , and what need is there of the ? In the same way, by way of the reflection of the object, is made of the object too; and with that the has arrived as well. If it is asked, “From where does it get that form?”, the answer to be given is, “From the series of earlier causes.” So if it is itself that has the form of , the consequence follows, as before, that it is permanent. If, on the other hand, even what has the form of is not permanent, then there is no permanent at all whose knowledge could be said to be, and so there is nothing but knowing. For dealings with objects are accomplished by just this much: the awareness that has the form of the of objects, and the awareness that has the form of , memory and the like. So the reversal of the absurd consequence is gained: this is the gist of the two verses that begin “And if knowledge has the form of ”.
Having examined knowledge in this way, he examines action:
Action too, of an object such as the body, is its coming to be in this place or that and so on; there is no other, for none is seen.
Here, to begin with, take action in the form of movement, whatever comes within the range of appearing as “he goes”, “he moves”, “he falls” and so on. In it just this much is perceived: ’s form as he stands in a place outside, right after ’s form within the house. But we are aware of no other action at all, over and above those forms. In “ stays all day”, on the other hand, what shines is ’s form as entered by the time of dawn, then that form as embraced by the time of a later watch, and so on; and in “the milk is changing”, the form of a sweet thing, the form of a sour thing, a liquid form, a solid form, and so on. So it is from likeness that there is there, even though the thing is different, as with the body, hair, nails and so on. Where place and form differ, a difference of time is bound to follow; and where place and time differ, form differs too, since place is nothing but the thing’s form, and a difference of time is a difference of form. So although place, time and form all come down to form alone, still, to a coarse view, there is a difference; for that is why the Buddhists speak of them as different. This is the gist. So action is nowhere seen by perception; and, that being so, it is not seen by an inference based on perception either. And the effect, arriving and the like, is just the form of the next moment, the form of the thing in that place and so on; so action cannot be posited even on the ground that the effect could not otherwise come about. So it is not seen by perception or by inference: this states that there is no to establish it.
He states what cancels it as well:
nor is it one, since it is sequential; nor does it befit a single thing.