________________
Āptamīmāmsā
Yes, a nonentity (asat) is indescribable, but only an entity (sat) becomes a nonentity (asat), in some respect, depending on the process of reasoning:
अवस्त्वनभिलाप्यं स्यात् सर्वान्तैः परिवर्जितम् । वस्त्वेवावस्तुतां याति प्रक्रियाया विपर्ययात् ॥४८॥
सामान्यार्थ – जो सर्व-धर्मों से रहित है वह अवस्तु है ( किसी भी प्रमाण का विषय नहीं होने के कारण ), और जो अवस्तु है वह ही (सर्वथा) अनभिलाप्य (अवाच्य) होती है। वस्तु प्रक्रिया के विपर्यय से (विपरीत हो जाने पर पर-द्रव्य आदि की अपेक्षा से ) अवस्तुता को प्राप्त हो जाती है।
(As posited by the Buddhists -) Something that is devoid of all characteristics is a nonentity (being not discernible through any method of knowledge - pramāna) and being a nonentity that something is indescribable. (But we posit -) Only a real entity is called a nonentity (somehow, in some respect) when the process of reasoning (of attributing characteristics to it) is reversed.
86
The empiricist Buddhist refuses to call a 'series' a real entity in the sense in which he calls the members of this series real entities but that he at the same time refuses to dismiss a ‘series' as an illusory appearance.
Shah, Nagin J. (1999), "Samantabhadra's Aptamīmāmsā - Critique of an Authority", p. 51.
