In the Hetubinduṭīkā, after the refutation of Īśvarasena and Kumārila from the viewpoint of kartṛsthakriyā and karmasthakriyā, the counterargument is developed by an anonymous opponent to avoid that problem. This rebuttal is based on ordinary conception: 1. Perception of a place alone; 2. Cognition of knowledge of a place alone; 3. Understanding of the non-existence of a pot; 4. Understanding of activity regarding the non-existence （abhāvavyavahāra） of the pot. Furthermore, by interpreting 1. the perception of a place alone as karmasthakriyā and 2. the perception of knowledge of a place alone as kartṛsthakriyā, the opponent claims that there is no difference from the theory of non-cognition maintained by Dharmakīrti. Also, the negative statements by four opponents, that is Īśvarasena, Kumārila, Nyāya, and the other, are introduced at the beginning of the annotation of the non-cognition argument in HBṬ. The content of that other’s theory, which is not identified, is also consistent with the ordinary conception mentioned above. This opponent would be the counterargument intentionally assumed by Arcata; on the other hand, he makes it efficient by pointing that this counterargument meets the requirements of kartṛsthakriyā and karmasthakriyā.
