syād etan na nīlaśabdena dravyamabhidhīyate kiṃ tarhinīlākhyo guṇas tatsamavetā vā nīlatvajātiḥ utpalaśabdenāpyutpalajātirevocyate, na dravyaṃ, tena bhinnārthābhidhānād utpalaśabdāntarākāṅkṣā yujyata evetyata āha nīlajātir ityādi /
One might argue thus: "The word 'blue' does not denote a substance, but rather either the quality called blue or the universal 'blueness' inherent in it, and likewise the word 'lotus' denotes only the universal 'lotusness', not a substance. Therefore, since they denote different things, the desire for another word 'lotus' is indeed justified." To this [the author] responds with "the universal blue" etc.