tathā hi ye te vinaśyanti ghaṭādayaḥ svakāraṇādisamavāyinas teṣāṃ svakāraṇeṣu vṛttyātmako yo 'sau samavāyaḥ kalpitaḥ sa eva kiṃ teṣu vinaṣṭeṣu sambandhyantareṣvasti, āhosvidanya eva, yathā saṃyogo bahutvaṃ vā pratisaṃyogi bhidyate
For when those jars etc., which are said to inhere in their causes, are destroyed, does that same samavāya which was postulated as constituting their existence in their causes exist in other relatives after their destruction, or is it something different [in each case], like conjunction or plurality which differs with each conjunct?