因明義斷 1.48

1.48

又云：誰言缺過望因三相。此亦不然。如闕同有等，豈非是過耶？故尋諸解，竟無一當，亦應更思。

Furthermore, he says: "Who said that the doṣa of deficiency is considered in relation to the three characteristics of the hetu?" This is also incorrect. For instance, lacking presence in the sapakṣa and the like—how could that not be a doṣa? Therefore, examining all these explanations, not a single one hits the mark; this should also be reconsidered.