Nyāya Sūtras 47.7

47.7

``udāharaṇasādharmyāt sādhyasādhanaṃ hetuḥ'' ity asparśatvād iti hetur nityatvaṃ vyabhicarati, asparśā buddhir anityā ceti/ evaṃ dvividhe 'pi dṛṣṭānte vyabhicārāt sādhyasādhanabhāvo nāstīti lakṣaṇābhāvād ahetur iti/
nityatvam apy eko 'nto 'nityatvam apy eko ṇta ekasminn ante vidyata iti aikāntikaḥ viparyayād anaikāntika ubhayāntavyāpakatvād iti// 5 //

in accordance with the rule, 'The logical reason is the proof of the probandum through similarity with the example,' the logical reason 'because of intangibility' deviates from eternality, since cognition is intangible and non-eternal. Thus, because of deviation in both kinds of examples, the relation of probandum and proof does not exist; therefore, due to the absence of the definition, it is a non-reason. Eternality is one extreme, and non-eternality is one extreme. That which is found in one extreme is conclusive (aikāntika); by contrast, it is inconclusive (anaikāntika), because it pervades both extremes. || 5