uktaṃ hi "niścayāropamanasor bādhyabādhakabhāvataḥ" iti tat kuto niścaye samutpanne satīyam aprāmāṇyāśaṅkā / yena tannivṛttaye bhavataḥ sādhanaprayogaprayāsaḥ saphalo bhavet /
For it has been stated that "between conviction and doubt there is a relation of that which negates and that which is negated," so when conviction has arisen, whence could there be this doubt about invalidity, by removing which your effort of applying proofs could become fruitful?