Swaashrayanisthaatyantaabhavapratiyogitwangvamithyatwam. Tad cha swatantraabhavadhikaraneevapratiyamanatwamatahapurvavailakshanyamdushanapariharapurvavat.
Swaashraya- by the word “swa” whatever is to be proven should be accepted. Thus swa here means mithyatwa. Thus swaashraya- means mithyatwaashraya. Nistha- in that locus (adhikarna), the place, where mithya exists.Atyantaabhavapratiyogitwang- adjunct of eternal absence. Now, atyantaabhava( eternal absence) and traikaliknishedpratiyogitwang (absence in all the three periods of time) (from the second definition of falsity) are very similar.Swaashrayanistha (the place/locus of existence of the mithya object) and pratipannaupapadou (jnatedharmine)(second definition of falsity) are very similar.So it may seem that the reference is being made by the revered author once more to the second definition of falsity. This is called dosha (error) called punaruktidosha( error of repetition). Instead of presenting it here, this definition of falsity should have been discussed with second definition of falsity. If such a doubt is raised, MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says there is no such error. The difference between the two definitions is that in this definition of falsity, swatantraabhavadhikaraneevapratiyamanatwam – the locus of the eternal absence is incorporated into the definition and thus it is different from the earlier one. All the contradictions and objections that can be raised are also more or less same to the second definition of falsity and can be rejected in a similar fashion.
Na cha samyoginisamavayinivadeshe tad atyantaabhavasambhavaasambhavetuupadantwaanupapattiitivachyam,
A very interesting objection is raised by the dualist here. While discussing the second definition of falsity, the logicians had tried to show that in the same place samyoga and samavaya relationship can be there, and the same object can be existent and non existent in the same locus through different relations(samyoga and samavaya). On the other hand, by the same relation the object can be existent in one part of the locus and absent in the other. However, while the relevant discussion took place MadhusudanaSaraswatiji, negated those ideas and proved that what actually is being proved in all those places is the existence and non existence of the relationship. Here the dualist is raising a slightly different objection.A pot exists on a table/ground through samyoga (conjunction) relationship. In that locus of existence, the eternal absence of pot-atyantaabahva can never be proved. The pot exists in the pot-sherds by samvaya (inherent) relationship. In that locus also the eternal absence of pot can be never proven. If eternal absence of pot is shown in the potsherds, then being the locus of eternal absence of pot, they can never be the cause of pot, which is absurd. The contention of the dualist is this: whatever be the relationship, samyoga or samvaya, the existence of an object can never be negated in the locus. In order to refute this MadhusudanaSaraswatiji says na cha vachyam.
Through the relationship of time, both prior absence-pragabhava and eternal absence –atyantaabahva can be there. Therefore it can exist through the relationship of space also. Pragabhavasatwenupadanavirodhat cha- however, if there is eternal absence it can’t be material cause. Thus in case of pot sherds they can never be the cause for pot. This problem is avoided by the fact that pragabhava is also posited to be there and that prior absence can be the cause of this pot.
Na cha atyantaabhavaadhikaranepragabhavasyaapianupapattiitivachyam
The dualist tries to bring in a rule that wherever there is pragabhava(prior absence), there is no atyanatabhava(eternal absence) and wherever there is atyantaabhava there is no pragabhava. However MadhusudanaSaraswatiji sys that there is no such rule and thus says na cha vachyam
This is because, through time eternal absence and prior absence can co-exist (see footnote 1) and the rule established by the dualist is negated – vyabhicharat.
Na cha kale pragabhavaatyantaabhavayosamanadhikaranamidaningghataatyantaabhavaidanngghatapragbhavaitipratitevalatangikritat
The dualist argues that in time both pragabhava and atyantaabahva can be shown to be existing because of direct perception- pratitevalatangikritat. However,
Deshetu tad ubhaysamanadhikaranyenakinchidapipraanamitivachyam
That prior absence and eternal absence can exist in the same space, is not validated by any means of right knowledge. At least there is pramana for prior absence and eternal absence to exist in the same time by virtue of one’s perception but not for space. However this is refuted by the revered author in the following way:
The knowledge gained through mithyatwaanumana and shruti itself is the pramana. Swaahshrayanistha-This term indicates that there is atyantaabhava in the locus of the object, and thus even in pragabhava that can persist. Moreover the shrutisays’nehananastikinchan”-nothing exist except self.
The only rule is that bhava (existence) and abhava (non-existence) should exist in different planes of reality.
 Consider that there a few pot sherds which can be used to make a pot, but the pot still has not been made. So both eternal absence and prior absence of pot is there. Once the pot is made, these absences are negated. Thus anything that is created has a relationship with time and through that relationship with time both types of absence can persist in the locus.