因明入正理論疏 1.122

1.122

問：「何故此因於宗、異品皆說遍字，於同品上獨說定言？」答：「因本成宗，不遍成者非立。異喻止濫，不遍止者非遮。成不遍故不成過生，遮不盡故不定等起。成宗不遍如上已陳，止濫不盡至下當悉。同喻本順成宗，宗成即名同喻，豈由喻遍能順所立方成宗義？但欲以因成宗，因有宗必隨逐。不欲以宗成因，有宗因不定有。故雖宗同品，不須因遍有。於異品有，同品半有半無，雖並不定，由因於異有故成過，非因於同不遍為失。即九句內，後三句中初後句是。後三中句正因所攝，於異品中止濫盡故。初後二句不定過收，皆止異品濫不盡故。由此同品說定有性，宗異品中皆說遍也。」

Question: "Why is the word 'pervades' (vyāpaka) used for this hetu with respect to the pratijñā and the vipakṣa, whereas only the word 'necessarily' (niyata) is used with respect to the sapakṣa?" Answer: "The hetu originally establishes the pratijñā; if it does not establish it completely (pervasively), it is not a valid sādhana. The dissimilar example (vaidharmya-dṛṣṭānta) serves to stop overextension (atiprasaṅga); if it does not stop it completely, it is not an effective exclusion. Because establishing is not pervasive, the fault of asiddha (unproven) arises; because exclusion is not exhaustive, faults like anaikāntika (inconclusive) arise. The lack of pervasion in establishing the pratijñā has been explained above; the failure to stop overextension exhaustively will be fully understood below. The similar example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta) originally accords with establishing the pratijñā; once the pratijñā is established, it is called a sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta. How could it be that only when the example pervades and is able to accord with what is to be established that the thesis is established? It is merely desired that the pratijñā be established by the hetu; where the hetu is present, the pratijñā must necessarily follow. It is not desired that the hetu be established by the pratijñā; where the pratijñā is present, the hetu does not necessarily exist. Therefore, even though it is the sapakṣa of the pratijñā, the hetu does not need to exist pervasively. When it exists in the vipakṣa, and exists in half and is absent in half of the sapakṣa, although both are inconclusive (anaikāntika), it is because the hetu exists in the vipakṣa that it constitutes a fault, not because the hetu's failure to pervade the sapakṣa is a defect. This refers to the first and last of the final three clauses among the nine clauses. The middle clause of the final three belongs to the valid hetu (saddhetu), because it exhaustively stops overextension in the vipakṣa. The first and last clauses are subsumed under the fault of anaikāntika, because both fail to stop overextension in the vipakṣa completely. For this reason, with respect to the sapakṣa it says 'necessarily existing', while for the pratijñā and the vipakṣa it says 'pervades'."