因明入正理論疏 1.132

1.132

問：「言遍無性，已顯無因，宗必隨無，何須言異品？既云異品，即顯無宗，因亦隨無，何須復云遍無性也？」答：「但言遍無、不言異品，乃顯此因成相違法等，非離於宗，返成宗義。但言異品、不言遍無，亦顯此因成不定等，非定成宗。今顯此因定成於宗，同品定有，於異品上決定遍無，故說異品遍無性也。由此應為四句分別：有異品非遍無，謂宗異品非因遍無，即九句中除二、五、八，餘六句是，一、三、七、九四是不定，四、六相違，如前配釋。有遍無非異品，謂因遍無非宗異品，即九句中第四、五、六，四、六相違，第五不定。有異品亦遍無，謂宗異品亦因遍無，即九句中第二、五、八，二、八正因，第五不定。有非異品亦非遍無，謂非宗異品亦非因遍無，即九句中除四、五、六，餘六句是，二、八正因，餘四不定。如上所說諸句料簡，自句他句皆無過者，正因所攝。當句之中雖無其過，他句有過，故應如前一一分別。初三句中，唯第三句少分正因，餘皆有過，為簡彼過，故說異品遍無性也。」

Question: "Since saying 'pervadingly nonexistent' already indicates that where there is no reason, the thesis is necessarily also absent, why is it necessary to say 'dissimilar instances'? And since saying 'dissimilar instances' already indicates that where the thesis is absent, the reason is also absent, why is it necessary to repeat 'pervadingly nonexistent'?" Answer: "If one were only to say 'pervadingly nonexistent' without saying 'dissimilar instances', it would merely show that this reason establishes contradictory properties and the like; it would not be a matter of turning back to establish the meaning of the thesis through separation from the thesis. If one were only to say 'dissimilar instances' without saying 'pervadingly nonexistent', it would also merely show that this reason becomes inconclusive and the like; it would not definitively establish the thesis. Now, to show that this reason definitively establishes the thesis, being definitively present in similar instances and definitively pervadingly nonexistent in dissimilar instances, it is therefore said to be 'pervadingly nonexistent in dissimilar instances'. Accordingly, one should distinguish four permutations: (1) there are dissimilar instances where it is not pervadingly nonexistent—namely, being dissimilar instances of the thesis yet not pervadingly nonexistent regarding the reason; that is, among the nine permutations, excluding the second, fifth, and eighth, the remaining six are this: the first, third, seventh, and ninth are the four inconclusive [reasons], and the fourth and sixth are contradictory, as explained in their respective assignments above; (2) there is pervading nonexistence without being dissimilar instances—namely, being pervadingly nonexistent regarding the reason yet not being dissimilar instances of the thesis; that is, the fourth, fifth, and sixth among the nine permutations: the fourth and sixth are contradictory, and the fifth is inconclusive; (3) there are dissimilar instances and it is also pervadingly nonexistent—namely, being dissimilar instances of the thesis and also pervadingly nonexistent regarding the reason; that is, the second, fifth, and eighth among the nine permutations: the second and eighth are correct reasons, and the fifth is inconclusive; (4) there are neither dissimilar instances nor is it pervadingly nonexistent—namely, not being dissimilar instances of the thesis and not being pervadingly nonexistent regarding the reason; that is, among the nine permutations, excluding the fourth, fifth, and sixth, the remaining six are this: the second and eighth are correct reasons, and the other four are inconclusive. Examining the various permutations stated above, those that are free from error in both their own permutation and the others are subsumed under correct reasons. Even though there is no error within the permutation itself, if there is an error in another permutation, one should distinguish them one by one as above. Among the first three permutations, only a small portion of the third permutation constitutes correct reasons, while all the rest have errors; in order to eliminate those errors, it is said to be 'pervadingly nonexistent in dissimilar instances'."