nāsatastadviśiṣṭaṃ cet kimidānīṃ tadātmakam / no cet tathāpi vaiśiṣṭyaṃ tasmād asya na kiṃ matam //
If [you say that the universal] is not distinct from the non-existent, then is it [itself] of the nature of that [non-existent]? If not, then why is it not accepted that it is distinct from it?