६४ २३८. विप्रतिपन्न सत्यं प्रमाणादृष्टत्वात्, ब्रह्मवत्, इत्यनुमान विरोधश्च । २३९ . न च साध्यानिरूक्तिः; अबाध्यतायाः साध्यत्वात् । तस्याश्च ब्रह्मणि सिद्धत्वान्नाप्रसिद्धविशेषणता । २४०. ननु किमिदं अतात्विकप्रमाणष्टत्वं वा ? वादावली प्रमाणदृष्टत्वम् ? x २४१. नाद्य ; अस्माकमसिद्धेः । प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणानां तत्त्वा वेदकतानभ्युपगमात् । तात्विकप्रमाणदृष्टत्वम् ? ]] 238. And there is conflict with the (following) inference : "The thing under dispute is real, because it is cognised through a means of valid knowledge, like 239. Nor is the proba11dium undefined, since being non-sublatable (itself) is the probandium. And because of the establishment of that (non-sublatability) in the case of Brahmar1, there is not (the defect of) non-estab lished qualification. 240. Now, what is this being cognised through a 178arms of valid knowledge ? Is it being cognised through a real means of valid krnowledge, or being cognised through a non-real means of valid knowledge ? 241. Not the first, because it is. mot established for us (the Advaitins, since means of valid knowledge 1ike perception, etc. are not admitted as making knowT1 reality
