संस्कृतपरीक्षा नाम सप्तमं प्रकरणम् ६९ not correct. English Translation-It has already been discussed that a lamp can illumine neither itself nor any other object. The opponent here may argue that the previous supposition that illumination (prakasa padartha ) is nothing other than destruction of darkness, is Illumination (prakasa ) is an independent object ( padartha ) of the nature of Teja (Heat). So the heat-natured ( tejahsvarupa ) lamp even before its origin will be able to dispel the dark- ness at the moment immediately preceding its ( lamp's ) origin and it will originate after the destruction of darkness. So there is no difficulty in stating that lamp will illumine itself as well as others. On this assumption of the opponent, Nagarjuna says that, it is not possible for the lamp to destroy darkness itself being unborn. Lamp is the destroyer ( Nasaka) while darkness is the object to be destroyed ( Nasya). If there is no contact or communion between the two. destroyer and destroyed, the destruction ( Nasa ) cannot take place. And as no relationship can be established between the un- born lamp and darkness, such a lamp cannot be imagined as its destroyer. It is a fact that relationship is possible between two existing objects. Lamp in its unborn state is to be regarded as non-existent. So its relationship with darkness cannot take place. Thus the argument of the opponent as placed before, falls to the ground. 01011 अप्राप्यैव पूदीपेन यदि वा निहतं तमः । इहस्थः सर्वलोकस्थं स तमो निहनिष्यति ||११|| यदि अप्राप्यैव प्रदीपन तमो निहतमेव सति इहस्थः एव प्रदीपः सर्वलोकस्थ तमो निहनिष्यति, अप्राप्तत्वात् समीपस्थमिवेत्यभिप्रायः एतेन न्यायेन ज्ञानेनाविद्याघातः चक्षुषा रुपदर्शनमयस्कान्तमणिना अयनाकर्षणमिवेत्मेवमादिक साध्यसमज्ञ यम् ॥ अथाप्राप्तावपि सत्यामयस्कान्तमणिप्रभृतीनां योग्यदेशावस्थिता- नामिव खकार्यकत्त्व भविष्यतीति चेत्, तदपि न युक्तम् । अप्राप्ती हि
