因明入正理論疏 1.135

1.135

上來三句所說過者，各自句中四句之過。若談闕過，闕有二種：一無體闕、二有體闕。無體闕者，謂不陳言，但在三支，非在三相。若陳因言，必有體闕。三相既義，故非無體。無體闕者，此中相對互說有無，亦為四句：有闕因非同異喻、有闕同異喻非因、有闕因亦闕同異喻、有非闕因非闕同異喻。此四句中，初句闕一、第二句闕二、第三句闕三、第四句非過，如是乃至三立皆闕、三皆不闕，有闕皆過；不闕不定，雖有所陳，似立生故。三皆闕者，唯陳其宗，不陳餘故。如是合有三箇四句、一箇兩句，但名闕過，非餘過攝。有體闕者，復有二種：一者、以因三相而為能立，雖說因三相，少相名闕。二者、因一喻二，三為能立，雖陳其體，義少名闕。且因三相少相闕者，有闕初相非後二、有闕後二非初相、有闕初相亦後二、有不闕初相亦非後二，如是乃至三相俱闕、三相俱不闕。此中總有三種四句，一種兩句，唯闕初相，四不成攝。如是二合闕乃至三合闕，隨應唯有不成、不定及相違過，皆因過故。若因一喻二陳為能立義少闕者，亦有三種四句、一種二句，且闕因義非後二，四不成過。有闕第二非初後俱不成攝、有闕第三非初二俱不遣攝，如是闕二乃至闕三及三不闕，闕者皆過，不闕非過。隨應各有因四不成、同喻俱不成、異喻俱不遣，或具二過，或具三過。賢愛論師、陳那菩薩等不以無體為闕，故唯六句。雖唯陳宗，從元無能立，何名能立缺減之過？諸德皆說總有七句，不言有能立以成過，但是闕能立過，故說七闕。

The faults described in the three permutations above are the faults of the four permutations within their respective categories. If we speak of the fault of deficiency, there are two kinds of deficiency: first, deficiency in substantial presence (wutiquē); second, deficiency with substantial presence (youtiquē). 'Deficiency in substantial presence' means not uttering the words; this occurs only in the three members, not in the three characteristics. If one utters the words of the reason, it necessarily has the deficiency with substantial presence. Since the three characteristics are the underlying meanings, they do not lack substantial presence. Regarding 'deficiency in substantial presence', setting them against one another and mutually asserting presence and absence also yields four permutations: (1) deficient in the reason but not in the similar and dissimilar examples; (2) deficient in the similar and dissimilar examples but not in the reason; (3) deficient in the reason and also deficient in the similar and dissimilar examples; (4) not deficient in the reason and not deficient in the similar and dissimilar examples. Among these four permutations, the first is deficient in one; the second is deficient in two; the third is deficient in three; the fourth is not a fault. Proceeding thus, up to where all three probantia are deficient, or none of the three is deficient: whenever there is a deficiency, it is an error; when there is no deficiency, it is not determined [as valid], for although words are stated, a semblance of a proof may arise. Where all three are deficient, one only states the thesis and does not state the rest. In this way, there are altogether three sets of four permutations and one set of two permutations; these are simply named faults of deficiency and are not subsumed under other faults. Regarding 'deficiency with substantial presence', there are again two kinds: first, taking the three characteristics of the reason as the probans, even though one speaks of the three characteristics of the reason, a deficiency in a characteristic is called a deficiency; second, the reason being one and the examples being two, taking the three as the probans, even though their substance is stated, a deficiency in meaning is called a deficiency. As for deficiency in a characteristic among the three characteristics of the reason: there is deficiency in the first characteristic and not the latter two; deficiency in the latter two and not the first characteristic; deficiency in the first characteristic and also in the latter two; and non-deficiency in the first characteristic and also not in the latter two. Proceeding thus, up to where all three characteristics are deficient, or all three characteristics are not deficient. In this, there are altogether three sets of four permutations and one set of two permutations. Being deficient only in the first characteristic is subsumed under the four types of unproven (asiddha). In this way, combining two deficiencies up to combining three deficiencies, as appropriate, there are only the faults of unproven (asiddha), inconclusive (anaikāntika), and contradictory (viruddha), because they are all faults of the reason. If the reason as one and the examples as two are stated as the probans and there is a deficiency in meaning, there are also three sets of four permutations and one set of two permutations: deficient in the meaning of the reason and not the latter two is the fault of the four types of unproven; deficient in the second and not the first and last is subsumed under the mutual failure to establish (ubhaya-asiddha); deficient in the third and not the first two is subsumed under the mutual failure to exclude (ubhaya-avyāvṛtti). In this way, deficient in two up to deficient in three and none of the three deficient: those that are deficient are all faulty, and those that are not deficient are not faulty. As appropriate, each has the four types of unproven reason, the mutual failure to establish in the similar example, and the mutual failure to exclude in the dissimilar example; or it possesses two faults, or possesses three faults. Master Bhavyaviveka (Xian'ai), the Bodhisattva Diṅnāga, and others do not regard the lack of substantial presence as a deficiency, and therefore hold only six permutations. For if one merely states the thesis, from the very beginning there is no probans; how could it be called a fault of deficiency in a probans? The various masters all state that there are seven permutations in total, not stating that having a probans constitutes a fault, but simply that it is a fault of being deficient in the probans; therefore, they speak of seven deficiencies."