因明入正理論疏 1.126

1.126

後三句者，一、同品有非有、異品有，如聲論師立聲非勤勇無間所發，無常性故，喻若電空。此非勤宗，瓶為異喻。無常性因於同品電上有、空上非有，異品瓶中一向是有。二、同品有非有、異品非有，如勝論師立內聲無常，勤勇無間所發性故，喻若電瓶。此無常宗，空為異喻。勤勇之因於同品瓶等上有、電等上無，異品空中一向非有。三、同品有非有、異品有非有，如聲論師對勝論師立聲為常，無質礙故，喻若極微及太虛空。此中常宗，以瓶、樂等而為異喻。無質礙因，於其同品虛空上有、極微上無，亦於異品瓶等上無、樂受等有。是名九句。

As for the latter three statements: First, presence and absence in the sapakṣa, presence in the vipakṣa. For instance, the Śabdika posits: 'Sound is not produced immediately by conscious effort, because of being impermanent, like lightning and empty space.' For this thesis of non-effort, a pot is the dissimilar example (vaidharmya-dṛṣṭānta). The reason, impermanence, is present in the sapakṣa lightning and absent in empty space, while it is uniformly present in the vipakṣa, the pot. Second, presence and absence in the sapakṣa, absence in the vipakṣa. For instance, the Vaiśeṣika posits: 'Internal sound is impermanent, because of being produced immediately by conscious effort, like lightning and a pot.' For this thesis of impermanence, empty space is the dissimilar example. The reason, effort-producedness, is present in the sapakṣa pot and absent in lightning, while it is uniformly absent in the vipakṣa, empty space. Third, presence and absence in the sapakṣa, presence and absence in the vipakṣa. For instance, the Śabdika posits against the Vaiśeṣika: 'Sound is permanent, because of being devoid of spatial obstruction (amūrta), like atoms and space.' Here, for the thesis of permanence, pots and pleasure are the dissimilar examples. The reason, lack of spatial obstruction, is present in its sapakṣa empty space and absent in atoms, and it is also absent in the vipakṣa pots, etc., and present in pleasure, etc. These are called the nine statements.