Establishment of Brahman 3.86

3.86

syānmatam ---
yuktaṃ liṅgasya prāmāṇyamevam, arthe tasya pramāṇāntarasya saṃbhavāt /
saṃbhavati hi vṛṣṭyādiṣu pramāṇāntaram /
tatastaddvārārthagatiḥ /
na tu sarvaviśeṣātīte brahmaṇyāmnāyaikanibandhane 'bhyupagamyate /
tatra yathaiva buddhādivākyānām ‘evamayaṃ puruṣo veda'; iti jñānaniṣṭhānāmatīndriyārthe jñānasyāsaṃbhavānnārthe prāmāṇyamatīndriyārthopadeśinām, tathātrāpi syāt /
saṃbhavipramāṇaviṣayāptavacanavattu liṅgasya pramāṇaniṣṭhatve 'pi yujyate prāmāṇyam /
tadasat, brahmaṇyapi sākṣātkaraṇasyābhyupagamādavidyāsaṃhāre /
avidyāvatāṃ tu tadāmnāyaikanibandhanamucyate /
api ca

It might be thought:
In this way, the validity of an inferential mark is reasonable, because that other means of valid cognition is possible with regard to the object;
for another means of valid cognition is possible with regard to rain and the like;
hence the apprehension of the object occurs by means of that;
but [such another means of valid cognition] is not accepted with regard to Brahman, which transcends all specific attributes and is grounded solely on scripture;
in that case, just as the statements of the Buddha and others, which are devoted to knowledge [such as] “in this way this person knows”, do not have validity with regard to the object because knowledge is impossible with regard to an supersensible object for those who teach supersensible objects, so it would be here as well;
whereas, like the statement of a trustworthy person regarding an object accessible to a possible means of valid cognition, the validity of an inferential mark is appropriate even if it is devoted to a means of valid cognition.
This is incorrect, because direct realization is accepted even with regard to Brahman when nescience is destroyed;
for it is only with regard to those possessing nescience that it is said to be grounded solely on scripture.
Moreover: