na hi yanniṣpattau yo na niṣpannaḥ sa tasya svabhāvo yuktaḥ ekayogakṣemalakṣaṇatvād abhedasya tasmād yo 'sāvuttarakālamutpadyate nāśātmā bhāvaḥ so 'paraḥsvabhāvaḥ yaścāparaḥ sa kathaṃ tasya bhaved iti yatkiñcid etat
For what is not produced at the time of [a thing's] production cannot logically be its nature, since non-difference is characterized by having a single preservation and destruction; therefore, that entity which is produced later, having the nature of destruction, is [of] a different nature; and how could that which is different belong to it? Thus this [argument] is nonsensical.