yadi bādhakaḥ pratyayo 'napekṣyapramāṇabhāvas tatkathaṃ tatrāpavādāśaṅkā, yenocyate tatrāpi tvapavādasya syād apekṣeti, tataś ca parasparavyāhatam etaduktam anapekṣapramāṇatvam, tatra cāśaṅkyate bādhakam iti /
If the sublating cognition has self-sufficient validity, how can there be any suspicion of its sublation, due to which it is said that "there might be need for another sublating [cognition]"? Therefore these statements are mutually contradictory: that "it has self-sufficient validity" and that "a sublating [cognition] is suspected regarding it."