因明入正理論疏 1.139

1.139

述曰：四、別釋，有二：初問、後答。此問也。何故三相？不問釋初。答有二釋：一者、同品異品各各有二：一宗同異、二因同異。今說宗同異，恐濫因同異，故偏問之。初相無濫，故不須簡。問：「遍是宗法，宗有別總，義亦有濫，何故不徵？」答：「因於有無說宗同異，宗成順違說因同異，故於宗因同異不定，為簡此過，遂別徵二。由因但是有法宗法，成於法故，不是總宗及法之法，無濫可遮，故不徵釋。此問二體相成顯故。二者、宗是有法，上已明之，二品未明，故須徵釋。」

Commentary: Four, distinct explanations, which has two parts: first the question, and later the answer. This is the question. Why, among the three characteristics, is the first not asked about and explained? There are two explanations in answer: First, similar instances and dissimilar instances each have two aspects: (1) similarity and dissimilarity of the thesis, and (2) similarity and dissimilarity of the reason. Now, when speaking of similarity and dissimilarity of the thesis, for fear that they might be confused with similarity and dissimilarity of the reason, they are specifically questioned. The first characteristic has no such confusion, so it does not need to be distinguished. Question: "Regarding 'pervadingly being a property of the subject of the thesis', the thesis has both particular and collective aspects, so its meaning also has potential confusion; why is it not inquired into?" Answer: "Because the similarity and dissimilarity of the thesis are spoken of in relation to presence and absence of the reason, while the similarity and dissimilarity of the reason are spoken of in relation to conformity and contrariety in establishing the thesis, the similarity and dissimilarity of the thesis and the reason are inconclusive. In order to eliminate this error, these two are specifically inquired into. Because the reason is merely a property of the subject (dharmin) of the thesis and establishes the property (dharma), it is not the thesis as a whole nor a property of the property; there is no confusion to ward off, and so it is not inquired into or explained. This question is asked because the characteristics of the two entities are clearly made manifest. Second, the thesis is the subject possessing the property (dharmin), which has already been clarified above; the two classes have not yet been clarified, so they must be inquired into and explained."