Original
ज्ञानान्तरेणानुभवे सोऽर्थः स्वानुभवे सति ।
प्र(अ ?)सिद्धः सिद्ध्यसंसिद्धेः कदा सिद्धो भवेत्पुनः ॥ २०२३ ॥
तज्ज्ञानज्ञानजातौ चेदसिद्धः स्वात्मसंविदि ।
परसंविदि सिद्धस्तु स इत्येतत्सुभाषितम् ॥ २०२४ ॥jñānāntareṇānubhave so’rthaḥ svānubhave sati |
pra(a ?)siddhaḥ siddhyasaṃsiddheḥ kadā siddho bhavetpunaḥ || 2023 ||
tajjñānajñānajātau cedasiddhaḥ svātmasaṃvidi |
parasaṃvidi siddhastu sa ityetatsubhāṣitam || 2024 ||If the apprehension of the object were apprehended by another cognition,—then it would mean that at the time that the object is apprehended, it is not cognised; because its cognition has not yet come about: and if that is so, then when again would it become cognised?—If it be held that—“it would become cognised when its cognition becomes cognised”,—then it would mean that the object which is not cognised at the time of its own apprehension, becomes cognised on the apprehension of something else.—This indeed would be an extremely wise assertion!—(2023-2024)
Kamalaśīla
It might be held that there would be apprehension of it by another Cognition.
The answer to tills is as follows:—[see verses 2023-2024 above]
‘Siādhyasamsiddheḥ’—on account of its cognition not having come about.—It cannot be right that the thing whose appearance has not become cognised should be regarded as apparent. That is to say, even at the time that the Object is apprehended, there is no cognition of it; because the apprehension consisting of the manifestation of the Object has not yet been cognised; under the circumstances, it behoves you to explain at what time it would become cognised.
If it be held that—‘it would become cognised, etc. etc.’;—i.e. it would become cognised at the time of the appearance of the Cognition of its cogni -tion,—this indeed would be a very clever assertion! How can a thing which is not cognised at the time of its own apprehension become cognised at the time of the cognition of something else?—(2023-2024)