na tu anya apoha vat vastu vācyam asmābhiḥ iṣyate  / vyāvṛttāt anyatas abhāvāt na anyāt vyāvṛttiḥ asti naḥ // tad pāratantrya doṣaḥ yam jātau iva na saṃgataḥ  / avadātam iti prokte śabdasya arthe apṛthaktvataḥ  // viśeṣaṇa viśeṣya tva sāmānādhikaraṇyayoḥ / tasmāt apohe śabda arthe vyavasthā na virudhyate 
We do not hold that what the word denotes is the thing endowed with the ‘exclusion (Apoha) of other things’; because for us, there is no ‘exclusion’ other than the thing excluded from something else. Hence the objection that ‘it is dependent upon something else’ is not applicable to the ‘denotation of words’ as honestly explained,—in the way that it is to the theory of the ‘universal’ (being denoted by words). because there is no difference between the relation of qualification and qualified and ‘co-ordination’. Consequently there is no incongruity in the theory that it is Apoha that is denoted by words 