Nyāya Sūtras 77

And the denial of the three times does not hold, because their establishment is like the establishment of a musical instrument from sound.

Why, then, is this said? In order to connect with what was stated earlier. As for what was stated earlier—namely, that because there is no restriction of temporal sequence or simultaneity between the cause of apprehension and the object of apprehension, the statement of division is according to observation—so that its arising from this [sūtra] may be known. Indeed, this seer, observing what is not restricted, rejects the denial made by a fixed rule, [saying] that the denial of the three times is improper. There, he illustrates one manner: 'like the establishment of a musical instrument from sound.'

Just as by sound, which is established later, a musical instrument established earlier is inferred—the musical instrument being what is to be established, and sound being the means of establishment, for when the musical instrument is concealed, an inference arises from the sound: 'a lute is being played,' 'a flute is being blown,' so one apprehends a specific musical instrument by a specific sound—likewise, one apprehends an object of apprehension established earlier by a cause of apprehension established later. And because this serves as an illustration, the example for the remaining two manners is to be understood as stated before. Why, then, is that not stated here? What was stated earlier is being justified. In any case, this point had to be explained; whether it is explained here or there, there is no difference at all.