atha bhedābhedavikalpamavadhūya ghaṭo nidarśanatvenopādīyate, tadāpyasmānprati sādhyavikalatā dṛṣṭāntasya iti nidarśayannāha aviśeṣe 'pītyādi / taditi ghaṭavastu /
Now if the jar is taken as an example while setting aside the alternative of difference or non-difference, even then according to us there is absence of the probandum in the example - showing this [the author] states "even in case of non-specificity" etc. By "that" [is meant] the substance jar.