tadetad ayuktam parakīyasya siddhāntasya prāmāṇyenāparigrahāllokāyatasya kathaṃ tathāprāmāṇyena parigṛhītānniścayaḥ paralokasyāpi niścayaprasaṅgāt / athānyata eva pramāṇāntarāt tadavagataṃ tadeva tarhi kiṃ na sādhanam uktam kim agamakena jāḍyasaṃsūcakenopanyastena na hyanyasya tadasādhanaṃ yena tannābhidhīyate //
This is incorrect because if the Materialist does not accept the authority of others' doctrines, how can [he] arrive at certainty through what [he] does not accept as authoritative? [If he did], it would follow that [he] would also have to accept certainty about the other world. If [he] understands this from some other means of valid cognition, why was that not stated as the proof? What is the use of presenting an invalid reason that only indicates stupidity? For that [other proof] cannot be unsuitable for proving [his position], that [it] should not be stated.