成唯識論演祕 4.536

4.536

詳曰：夫五不定因於二喻，或有或無，無所立處即為異喻。立者雖立聖道等意在有法中，然後陳宗聖意非有，以理而言合居異喻，因既於轉，何非不定？誰望有法出不定耶？若言前立在有法中，如何復言是異法者？斯亦無爽，前依總立云有法收，出過據理合居異品。亦如古立宗因違云，如立聲常；一切皆是無常故，因。陳那正云：一切皆是無常故者，而是異喻，非是因也。彼既以理正因為喻，今亦以理正宗為異，亦何失乎？又《因明論》云：異法者若於是處，說所立無。釋除所立外所餘法處，但無所立即宗異法，聖道等意，既無所立，為異何咎？若不爾者，於是處言攝無所立法不盡也。止濫不窮，便諸過起，由斯疏判理固無違。

I examine this and say: The five types of indeterminate reason (hetu) are present or absent in the two examples (dṛṣṭānta); where the probandum (sādhya) is absent, that is the heterogeneous example (vipakṣa). Although the proponent posited the noble path and so forth within the subject, thereafter in stating the thesis the noble mind [is shown to be] non-existent [therein]; reasoned out logically, it ought to reside in the heterogeneous example. Since the reason applies there, why would it not be indeterminate? Who pointed out the indeterminate fault with reference to the subject? If one asks: Since it was previously posited in the subject, how can one now say it is a heterogeneous dharma? To this also there is no error: previously, based on the general proposition, it was said to be included in the subject; pointing out the fault is based on reason, according to which it properly belongs to the heterogeneous class (vipakṣa). It is like the ancient formulation where the thesis and reason conflicted, such as: positing sound as permanent; reason: 'because all things are impermanent'. Dignāga correctly stated: 'Because all things are impermanent' is in fact the heterogeneous example, not the reason. Since he rectified a reason into an example based on reason, what fault is there now in also rectifying a thesis into a heterogeneous [example] based on reason? Furthermore, the Hetuvidyā-śāstra states: 'The heterogeneous dharma is where the probandum is stated to be absent.' Commenting on this, [it means] the loci of remaining dharmas apart from the probandum; wherever the probandum is absent is simply a heterogeneous dharma to the thesis. Since the noble path's mental consciousness lacks the probandum, what fault is there in its being heterogeneous? If this were not so, the phrase 'where' would not exhaustively subsume dharmas lacking the probandum. Without an end to checking confusion, all sorts of faults would arise; therefore, the Commentary's judgment is fundamentally without error.