As pointed out by Yamagucchi, according to the Tibetan translation of the Ālambanaparīkṣā, Vinītadeva's and Dharmapāla's commentaries, the third verse is a report of the opponent's position of atomism. Xuanzang's translation of the Verse Three is not a faithful translation but an adaptation because he adds some explanations to elaborate the opponent's position and reconstructs the argument as Dignāga's own refutation of the atomism. Although Xuanzang's translation might be a misreading of the original meaning of the Verse Three, his additions and understandings probably come from Dignāga and his disciples because there are some similar descriptions of the opponent's atomism can be found in the Pramāṇasamuccaya-vṛtti and Jinendrabuddhi's Pramāṇasamuccaya-ṭīkā. Moreover, the original argument of the opponent is too simple to compose a syllogism. This might the reason that Xuanzang rewrites it as Dignāga's own refutation. Xuanzang reestablishes the logical relationship between the sādhya (i.e., not being an object-support) and the hetu (i.e., the forms of atoms do not appear in cognition). The reconstructed syllogism also assumes the minor premise that the aggregate forms are the same as the forms of atoms that do not appear in cognition; however, this premise would not be accepted by the opponents.
