Verse 123-124

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अहेतुकत्वसिद्ध्यर्थं न चेद्धेतुः प्रयुज्यते ।
न चाप्रमाणिकी सिद्धिरतः पक्षो न सिद्ध्यति ॥ १२३ ॥
तत्सिद्धये च हेतुश्चेत्प्रयुज्येत तथाऽपि न ।
सिद्धेस्तद्धेतुजन्यत्वात्पक्षस्ते संप्रसिद्ध्यति ॥ १२४ ॥

ahetukatvasiddhyarthaṃ na ceddhetuḥ prayujyate |
na cāpramāṇikī siddhirataḥ pakṣo na siddhyati || 123 ||
tatsiddhaye ca hetuścetprayujyeta tathā'pi na |
siddhestaddhetujanyatvātpakṣaste saṃprasiddhyati || 124 ||

If no reason is adduced to prove the fact of things having no cause, then, inasmuch nothing can be proved without reason, your theory is not proved.—if, on the other hand, you do adduce a reason proving it,—then also your theory is not proved,—as the proving itself would be produced by the proof adduced [which would therefore be the cause of the proving].—(124)

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

Further, you have to be asked the following question:—In support of your conclusion that “Things have no Cause”,—do you adopt any Reason, or not?—If you do not adopt it, then your view does not become proved; as there can be no proving of anything without adequate proof (means of cognition).—If, on the other hand, you do adopt a Reason,—even then, your view cannot he proved; [such is the construction of the words of the Text],—“Why so?”—Because the ‘proving’ itself would be produced by the Proof adduced.—This is what has been thus declared by the revered Ācāryca Sūri—‘One who declares that there is no Cause would demolish his own conclusion if he adduced any reasons in support of his assertion; on the other hand, if he were slow to adduce reasons, what could be gained by mere assertion?’—(123-124)