na hi vandhyāputranivṛttau tadasambaddhānāṃ prāṇādīnāṃ nivṛttir bhavati / tasmād yathā vandhyāsūnunivṛttau tadasambaddhānām pi prāṇādīnāṃ nivṛttiḥ prāpnoti ghaṭādivad iti kenacit prasaṅgāpādanaṃ kriyamāṇamanaikāntikaṃ bhavati evaṃ tavāpyetadātmanivṛttau prāṇādinivṛttiprasañjanam anaikāntikameva sambandhāsiddher iti bhāvaḥ //
Indeed, the absence of 'the son of a barren woman' does not entail the absence of vital functions etc. which are unconnected [with it]. Therefore, if someone were to put forward the contingency that the absence of vital functions etc., though unconnected [with it], would follow from the absence of the 'son of a barren woman' - like [the absence] of a jar - this would be inconclusive. Similarly, your argument putting forward the contingency of vital functions etc. being absent due to the absence of the Soul is also inconclusive, because no connection [between them] is established.