Nyāya Sūtras 115

And there is no relation, because filling, burning, and cutting are not apprehended.

And if a relation characterized as physical contact between word and object were apprehended, either the object would be near the word, or the word would be near the object, or both would be in both places. But could both be the case? And the object [cannot be near the word] because of the absence of the places and organs of articulation. Nor is this apprehended even through inference, that the object is near the word. Even in this alternative, the word is to be uttered by the places and organs of articulation in the mouth, and the object would be near it; so when uttering the words 'food,' 'fire,' and 'sword,' filling, burning, and cutting would be apprehended; but they are not apprehended. Because they are not apprehended, a relation characterized as contact cannot be inferred.

If the word were near the object, it could not be uttered, because the places and organs of articulation are impossible there—the places being the throat and so forth, the organ being a particular vocal effort, and their occurrence near the object is impossible. And because both [individual alternatives] are refuted, both cannot be the case. Therefore, the object is not in contact with the word.