आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

स्यान्मतं परतस्तस्य प्रामाण्यस्य विनिश्चये ।
प्रसज्यते प्रमेयत्वमिति नन्वविरोध्यदः ॥ २९८३ ॥

syānmataṃ paratastasya prāmāṇyasya viniścaye |
prasajyate prameyatvamiti nanvavirodhyadaḥ || 2983 ||

The following might be urged:—“it being ascertained that its validity is due to extraneous causes, the cognition should be regarded as ‘cognised’”.—There is no in congruity in this.—(2983)

Kamalaśīla

The following might he urged—“The validity of all Cognitions being equally due to extraneous causes, why should there be this distinction? And under these circumstances, the Cognition itself becomes the object cognised, which is extremely incongruous”.

This is the objection urged by the Opponent. The answer to this is that—‘there is no incongruity in this’;—‘adaḥ’, this.—There is no incongruity in this, as ‘cognition’ and ‘cognised’ are relative terms like ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, and ‘Father’ and ‘Son’.—(2983)

The same idea is further explained:—[see verses 2984-2985 next]