因明入正理論疏 1.141

1.141

述曰：下答前徵，有二：初同、後異。同中復二：一總出體、二別指法。此初也。所立法者，所立謂宗，法謂能別，均謂齊均，等謂相似，義謂義理，品謂種類，有無法處。此義總言，謂若一物有與所立總宗中法，齊均相似義理體類，說名同品。是中意說宗之同品。所立宗者，因之所立自性、差別不相離性，同品亦爾，有此所立中法互差別聚，不相離性相似種類，即是同品。若與所立總宗相似一切種類之聚名同品者，宗上意許所有別法皆入總宗。且如異品虛空上無我與聲意許無我相似，應名同品。若與所立有法相似種類之聚名為同品，即一切宗多無同品。如聲有法，瓶非同故，至下喻中當廣建立。為遮此二，總標所立法而簡別之。若聚有於賓主所諍，因所立法聚相似種類即名同品。由法能別之所別宗，因之所成，故舉此法以彰彼聚。問：「若爾，聲上無我等義非因所立，應名異品。」答：「彼若不許聲有法有，亦成異品，宗、因無故。若彼許有，為因所成，隨意所諍，亦名同品，故有有法差別相違。」

The Commentary states: Below is the answer to the preceding inquiry, which has two parts: first the homologous [class], and second the heterologous [class]. Within the homologous [class] there are also two parts: 1. generally setting forth the essence, and 2. specifically pointing out the property. This is the first. 'The property to be established' (sādhyadharma): 'to be established' refers to the thesis (pratijñā); 'property' refers to the qualifier (viśeṣaṇa); 'equal' (sama) means completely equal; 'similar' (tulya) means resembling; 'meaning' (artha) means principle; 'class' (jāti/pakṣa) means kind, the locus of existing or non-existing phenomena. Stated generally, this meaning means: if an entity has a kind of entity-principle that is completely equal and similar to the property in the overall thesis to be established, it is called a homologous class (sapakṣa). What is meant here is the homologous class of the thesis. As for the thesis to be established: it is the inseparability of the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) and the qualifier (viśeṣaṇa) established by the reason. The homologous class is likewise: that which has a similar kind of inseparability of the collection of mutually qualified [factors] within this property to be established is precisely the homologous class. If that which is similar to the entire collection of kinds of the overall thesis to be established were called the homologous class, then all distinct properties intended upon the thesis would also enter into the overall thesis. And for instance, the non-self upon the heterologous class of space would be similar to the intended non-self upon sound, and should be called a homologous class. If that which is similar to the collection of kinds of the subject (dharmin) to be established were called the homologous class, then most of all theses would have no homologous class, because like the subject sound, a pot is not identical [with it]; this will be broadly established below under the examples. In order to exclude these two, he generally designates the property to be established and delimits it. If a collection has a similar kind of collection of the property to be established by the reason over which the proponent and opponent dispute, it is precisely called a homologous class. Because the qualified thesis, which is the qualificand of the property, is established by the reason, he adduces this property to illuminate that collection. Question: 'If so, then properties such as non-self upon sound are not established by the reason, so they should be called the heterologous class.' Answer: 'If the other party does not accept that the subject sound has it, it also becomes a heterologous class, because thesis and reason are absent. If the other party accepts that it exists, and it is established by the reason according to what is disputed as intended, it is also called a homologous class; therefore there is the fallacy of contradiction with the intended property of the subject (dharmiviśeṣaviparītasādhana).'