०३ नानुमानम्

तस्माद्
अस्मद्-आदिष्व् अनालोचित-पर-चेतनातिरेक-परिकल्पना ऽल्पीयसीति,
नाभिप्रेत-साध्य-साधन-सम्बन्धे प्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणं,
नतरां तन्-मूलतया पञ्च-रात्र-स्मृतिः प्रमाणम् ।

To sum up:
For all these reasons
it would appear to us that the supposition that

some, otherwise unperceived, supreme spiritual being
exists with a superior sensibility

is very weak;
and this being so,
we conclude that Perception offers no authority
for the postulated relation of means to ends;
and since the authority of Pañcaratra is based upon the Perception of this supposed relation,
its authority is entirely non-existent.

[[6]]

Relation of means to ends - namely, the Pañcaratra postulation that such tantric ceremonies as consecration (ditsa), etc, are means leading to the summum bonum.

तस्मादस्मदादिषु अनालोचितपरचेतनातिरेकपरिकल्पनाऽल्पीयसीति नाभिप्रेतसाध्यसाधनसम्बन्धे प्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणं, नतरां तन्मूलतया पञ्चरात्रस्मृतिः प्रमाणम् ।

न च करण-पथ-दूर-वर्तिनि प्रस्तुत-वस्तुन्य्
+++(धूम-वह्नयोर् इव)+++ अविनाभावाधारणाधीनोदयम् अनुमानम् उत्पत्तुम् अलम् -
न ह्य् अ-दृष्ट-चर-वह्नयस् तद्-अविना-भावितया धूमम् अनुसंदधति ।+++(5)+++

9. Not only is there no Perception,
but there cannot possibly be an Inference to support the thesis in question,
for it is wholly suprasensible:
and Inference, of course, can only take place
after an invariable concomitance has been observed by means of Perception.
If no fires have ever been observed before,
they cannot prove that smoke is invariably concomitant with them."

In the standard inference:
the mountain has fire, because it has smoke,
as in the case of the kitchen.

Vide Siddhitraya: Īśvara°, pp. 233-34, for almost parallel statements.

दीक्षाराधन-स्वर्गादीनां साध्य-साधन-भावे इत्य् अर्थः।

न च करणपथदूरवर्तिनि प्रस्तुतवस्तुन्यविनाभावाधारणाधीनोदयमनुमानमुत्पत्तुमलम् - न ह्यदृष्टचरवह्नयस्तदविनाभावितया धूममनुसंदधति ।