Sarvadarshanasangraha 16.96

16.96

atra prabhākaraḥ : śuktikā rajatavad avabhāsata iti dṛṣṭānto neṣṭaḥ/ rajatapratyayasya śuktikālambanatvānupapatteḥ/ tathā hi : idaṃ rajatam iti pratītau śukter ālambanatvaṃ purodeśasattāmātreṇāvalambyate kāraṇatvena bhāsamānatvena vā/ nādyaḥ/ purovartināṃ loṣṭādīnām apy ālambanatvaprasaṅgāt/ atha kaladhautabodhakaraṇasaṃskārodbodhakāraṇatvena taddvārā rajatajñānakāraṇatvād ālambanatvaṃ manyase/ tad api na saṃgacchate/ cakṣurādīnām api kāraṇatvena viṣayatvāpātāt/ atha bhāsamānatayā viṣayatvam iṣyate tad apy aśliṣṭam/ rajatanirbhāsasya śuktikālambanatvānupapatteḥ/ yasmin vijñāne yad avabhāsate tat tadālambanam/ atra ca kaladhautānubhavaḥ śuktikālambanatvakalpanāyāṃ virudhyate/ tathā cācakathan nyāyavīthyāṃ śālikanāthaḥ :

Here the Prabhākara [replies]: The example 'mother-of-pearl appears like silver' is not accepted; for it is untenable that the cognition of silver has mother-of-pearl as its objective support. To explain: in the cognition 'this is silver', is the status of mother-of-pearl as the objective support based merely on its presence in the space before [the observer], or as being the cause, or as being what appears? Not the first; for clods of earth and the like located in front would also reductively follow to be the objective support. Now, if you think that it is the objective support because it is the cause of the cognition of silver via being the cause of awakening the mental impression that is the instrument for knowing silver—that too does not hold; for eyes and the rest would also reductively turn out to be the object, because of being causes. Now, if it is accepted that it is the object by being what appears, that too is unsuited; for it is untenable that an appearance of silver has mother-of-pearl as its objective support. Whatever appears in a cognition, that is its objective support. And here, the experience of silver contradicts the supposition that mother-of-pearl is the objective support. And thus Śālikanātha declared in the Nyāyavīthī: