因明入正理論疏 1.125

1.125

中三句者，一、同品非有、異品有，如聲論師立聲為常，所作性故，喻若虛空。此中常宗，瓶為異喻。所作性因於同品空上無，於異品瓶上有。二、同品非有、異品非有，如聲論師對佛弟子立聲為常，所聞性故，喻若虛空。此中常宗，瓶為異喻。所聞性因同異品中二俱非有。三、同品非有、異品有非有，如聲論師立聲為常，勤勇無間所發性故，喻若虛空。此中常宗，以電、瓶等為異品。勤勇之因於同品空一向非有，於其異品瓶等上有、電等上無。此是中三。

The middle three clauses are: First: absent in the sapakṣa and present in the vipakṣa. For example, a Śabdika establishes that sound is permanent, because it is produced, like space. Here, with permanence as the pratijñā, a pot is the dissimilar example. The hetu 'productness' is absent in the sapakṣa, space, and present in the vipakṣa, a pot. Second: absent in the sapakṣa and absent in the vipakṣa. For example, a Śabdika establishes against a Buddhist that sound is permanent, because it is audible, like space. Here, with permanence as the pratijñā, a pot is the dissimilar example. The hetu 'audibility' is absent in both sapakṣa and vipakṣa. Third: absent in the sapakṣa and both present and absent in the vipakṣa. For example, a Śabdika establishes that sound is permanent, because it is produced immediately by effort, like space. Here, with permanence as the pratijñā, lightning, pots, and the like serve as the vipakṣa. The hetu 'produced by effort' is entirely absent in the sapakṣa, space, and among its vipakṣa, it is present on pots and the like, but absent on lightning and the like. These are the middle three.