there is no way to claim necessity and in the claim of contemplation there is the nullification of the very doctrine so be amazed at this clear contradiction and the negligence of these deceived ones about it. if someone from those who deny contemplation says this will turn against you for it will be said to you how did you know the correctness of contemplation? if you claim necessity you will have invaded what you excluded and become entangled in the very thing you denied. if you claim that we have perceived it through contemplation then contemplation by which perception is achieved is by what you have known its correctness and the disagreement is established in it. if you claim to know that through a third contemplation… this is necessary in the fourth and fifth and so on. we said yes this speech would be reversed if the rationales were with verbal comparisons and the matter is not like that. so ponder the difference carefully for we say we know that rational consideration is evidence of knowledge of what is being considered by following the path of consideration and arriving at it. so whoever follows it will arrive and whoever arrives will know that what he followed is the path and whoever doubts before following it so it is said that the path of removing this doubt is following it.
ولا سبيل الى دعوى الضرورة وفي دعوى النظر إبطال عين المذهب فلتتعجب من هذا التناقض البين وغفلة هؤلاء المغرورين عنه فإن قال قائل من منكري النظر هذا ينقلب عليكم إذ يقال لكم وبم عرفتم صحة النظر إن ادعيتم الضرورة اقتحمتم مااستبعدتموه وتورطتم في عين ما انكرتموه وان زعمتم أنا ادركناه نظرا فالنظر الذي به الادراك بم عرفتم صحته والخلاف قائم فيه فان ادعيتم معرفة ذلك بنظر ثالث لزم ذلك في الرابع والخامس الى غير نهاية قلنا نعم كان هذا الكلام ينقلب إن كانت المعقولات بالموازنات اللفظية وليس الأمر كذلك فلتتأمل دقيقة الفرق فإنا نقول عرفنا كون النظر العقلي دليلا الى العلم بالمنظور فيه بسلوك طريق النظر والوصول إليه فمن سلكه وصل ومن وصل عرف أن ما سلكه هو الطريق ومن استراب قبل السلوك فيقال طريق رفع هذه الاسترابة السلوك