As pointed out by recent studies such as Funayama  etc., Sakyabuddhi, commenting on PVSV ad PV I. 169, offers a three-fold interpretation of the word anyapoha or “exclusion of others”. However, it remains untouched in what context he presents this interpretation. The aim of this paper is to clarify how Sakyabuddhi's interpretation is connected with the Samkhya school's objection which Dharmakirti rebuts in PV I. 169. In my view, Sakyabuddhi presents the three-fold interpretation of anyapoha for the sake of protection against the Samkhya's objection. In PV I. 167'cd ff. Dharmakirti criticizes the universal which the Samkhya school defines as external, eternal and non-different from individuals. According to Dharmakirti, the following faults would occur: 1) all individuals arise or disappear simultaneously; 2) if the rebutter doesn't consent to it, the universal must be admitted as different from individuals; and 3) as the universal and individuals are different, one can never define the relation between the universal and individuals. Against this, the Samkhya school accuses the Apoha theory of committing the same faults. Commenting on Dharmakirti's reply to this objection, Sakyabuddhi offers his three-fold interpretation, whereby Sakyahuddhi suggests that anyapoha, if considered to consist in an external object or in an internal consciousness, should not be regarded as something perdurable.