A valid reason under trairūpya requires determinate positive and negative instances, but śūnyatā-based arguments dissolve the very ontological categories needed to identify such instances.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

determinate positive and negative instances(as used in logic and reasoning): Clear-cut examples where something definitely is the case (positive) and clear-cut examples where it definitely is not the case (negative)—like having obvious instances of 'fire' and obvious instances of 'no fire' to test a logical argument.
dissolve(as used in philosophical argumentation): To break down, weaken, or disappear; in this context, to undermine or remove something's essential quality.
ontological categories(Thomasson's system; used to address mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness requirements): Classifications of purported entities distinguished by the relations of dependence they have or lack — specifically dependence on mental states and dependence on spatio-temporally located objects.
trairūpya(Found in Dignāga's Hetucakra and elaborated by Dharmakīrti): The triple criterion for good reasons in Buddhist logic.

Based on where you are in your exploration