vandhyāsutādīnām abhāvānāṃ rūpasya kasyacit svabhāvasyābhāvān na tadviṣayāḥ śabdā jātyādivācakatvenāśaṅkyāḥ, vastuvṛttīnāṃ hi śabdānāṃ kiṃrūpamabhidheyamāhosvit pratibimbakam iti śaṅkā syāt, abhāvaś ca vastuvivekalakṣaṇa eveti tadvṛttīnāṃ śabdānāṃ katham iva vastuviṣayatvāśaṅkā bhavet
Since non-entities like "son of a barren woman" have no form or essential nature whatsoever, words referring to them cannot be suspected of denoting universals etc.; for only in the case of words referring to [real] entities could there be a question whether they denote some form or [merely] a reflection; and since non-entities are characterized precisely by their distinction from entities, how could words referring to them be suspected of pertaining to entities?