nanu ca aśuci bhāvaḥ ayam sāṃvṛtaḥ na tu tāttvikaḥ  / tat svayam paratas vā ayam katham nāma bhaviṣyati // athavā bhāvika tve api śva māṃsa ādi vaśāt ime / jāyante aśucayaḥ bhāvāḥ na eva nityāḥ ajanmataḥ // pradīpa ādi prabhāvāt ca jñāna utpāda svarūpa tām  / labhante kṣaṇikāḥ hi arthāḥ kalaśa ābharaṇa ādayaḥ // na vivāda āspadībhūta viśeṣa bala bhāvinī / vailakṣaṇya matiḥ teṣu krama utpatteḥ sukha ādi vat 
As a matter of fact, this ‘unclean character’ is something purely illusory, not real; how then could it be there either ‘by itself’ or ‘through something else’?—Or, even if the unclean character be something real, it may be that other things become ‘unclean’ through contact with the dog’s flesh; nothing like this is possible in the case of eternal substances, because there can be no ‘becoming’ (being born) for them.—Through the influence of the lamp, momentary objects,—like the jar, the ornament and so forth,—become the cause of the production of cognitions; but the apprehension of distinction cannot come about through the influence of the ‘ultimate individualities’ in question,—because it comes about in succession,—like pleasure and the rest 