yadi nāmādhruvatayā vyaktir atiśayaṃ paścāllabhate, jātes tu dhruvatvāt prāgvtpaścād api tat samavāyaviguṇaṃ rūpam asti, katham iva paścād api samavāyinī bhavet / na cāpi paścāt kālabhāvidravyasamavāyāviguṇarūpaiva jātiḥ sarvadāvasthiteti śakyaṃ vaktum dravyasyāpi nityatvaprasaṅgāt, tat sambaddhasvabhāvāyā jāteḥ sadāvasthitatvāt /
Even if the particular, due to [its] impermanence, obtains an excellence later, yet since the universal is permanent, that nature [of being] unsuited for inherence exists both before and after - so how could it become inherent even later? And it cannot be said that "the universal always exists in a form not unsuited for inherence with a substance that will exist in future time", because that would result in the substance also being eternal, since the universal whose nature is connected [with it] would exist permanently.