成唯識論演祕 1.831

1.831

詳曰：不然！設許能詮祇有不定失，法自相相違過者，同無異有。今能詮因二喻皆有，故是不定。餘能詮聲無常為同，聲性為異。思之可悉。

Detailed assessment: Not so! Even if it were conceded to express meaning, there would only be the fault of inconclusiveness; for the fault of contradiction of the dharma's own nature occurs only when [the reason is] absent from the similar class and present in the dissimilar class. Here, the reason 'being capable of expressing meaning' is present in both examples, and is therefore inconclusive. Other expressive sounds, being impermanent, serve as the similar instance, while the nature of sound serves as the dissimilar instance. Consider this and it will be understood.