api ca yadānumānaparicchinnaṃ punar api tata eva liṅgāt tameva vahniṃ paricchinatti, tadāpi viśeṣato dṛṣṭaṃ kiṃ na varṇitam, yena pratyakṣato dṛṣṭa iti viśeṣaṇamiṣṭam
Moreover, when something has been cognized through inference and then that same fire is cognized again through that same inferential sign [i.e., smoke], why is that [second inference] not described as being based on particulars, when the qualification "perceived through perception" is desired?