sarvajñe kiṃ na vidyate, apitu vidyata eva, tatra yadi mātṛvivāhādyupadeśaḥ pramāṇīkriyate, sarvajño 'stītyayam asmadīyo 'pyupadeśaḥ kiṃ na pramāṇīkriyeta, viśeṣābhāvāt /
Does it not exist regarding the omniscient one? Rather, it certainly exists. In this case, if testimony about the mother's marriage and such things is accepted as valid, why should our testimony that "the omniscient one exists" not also be accepted as valid, since there is no difference [between the two cases]?