瑜伽論記 5.250

5.250

問答辨中，一、不決定故；二、同所成故者下，此第二復次釋立同類所以，此言意顯因於宗過名為不成，於同異喻過名為不定，於宗喻過名曰相違。不決定故者則六不定也，因於同異喻相違故不能決定成其宗義。同所成者則四不成四相違也。本立共因擬成宗果，因既帶似理須更成，若更成之與宗無別，故名同所成也，似同異喻亦在此攝。

In the question-and-answer discrimination, regarding "first, because it is inconclusive; second, because it is identical to the probandum": below, this is the second restatement explaining the reason for establishing homogeneous instances. This phrasing is intended to show that a fault of the reason (hetu) with respect to the thesis (pakṣa) is called "unproven" (asiddha); with respect to the positive and negative examples (dṛṣṭānta), it is called "inconclusive" (anaikāntika); with respect to both thesis and example, it is called "contradictory" (viruddha). "Because it is inconclusive" refers to the six inconclusive reasons; because the reason conflicts with the positive and negative examples, it cannot conclusively prove the thesis. "Identical to the probandum" refers to the four unproven reasons and four contradictory reasons. Originally, a shared reason was established with the intention of proving the fruit of the thesis; since the reason already carries a semblance, in principle it must be proven further. If it must be proven further, it is no different from the thesis; hence it is called "identical to the probandum." Semblance positive and negative examples are also subsumed here.