tathā hi bhedābhedau pārasparaparihārasthitalakṣaṇau, tayor ekasvabhāvavyavacchedenaivāparasya paricchedāt yasya hi yadātmavyavacchedamantareṇa na svabhāvaḥ paricchidyate sa tat parihāreṇa sthito yathā bhāvābhāvayor anyataraḥ, yau ca parasparaparihārasthitalakṣaṇau tayor ekasvabhāvaniṣedho 'paravidhināntarīyaka ityanyatvaniṣedhe sāmarthyāt tādātmyavidhir iti tadānīm eva tasyāpi pratiṣedho na yuktaḥ, anyatvasyāpyapratiṣedhaprasaṅgād ityevam ubhayapakṣe doṣo vācyaḥ /
For thus: difference and non-difference have the characteristic of mutual exclusion, because one is determined only through the exclusion of the nature of the other. For that whose nature cannot be determined without the exclusion of the nature of something else stands [in existence] through the exclusion of that [other], just as [in the case of] either of existence and non-existence. And when two things have the characteristic of mutual exclusion, the negation of the nature of one necessarily involves the affirmation of the other. Thus when difference is negated, by implication identity is affirmed, so it is not reasonable to negate that [identity] at that very time, because it would lead to the non-negation of difference also. In this way, a fault is to be stated for both positions.