因明入正理論疏 1.145

1.145

述曰：下解異品，有二：一總出體、二別指法。此初也。處謂處所，即除宗外餘一切法，體通有無。若立有宗，同品必有體，所以前言均等義品。異品通無體，故言是處。所立謂宗不相離性。謂若諸法處無因之所立，即名異品，非別無彼言所陳法及與有法名為異品，過如前說。此中不言無所立法，前於同品已言均等所立法訖。此准可知，但無所立，義已成故。《理門》亦云：「若所立無，說名異品。」但無所立即是異品，同品不說處，異體通無故。《瑜伽》說言：「異類者，謂所有法望所餘法，其相展轉，少不相似。」故非一切全不相似，但無隨應，因所成故。與同相違，亦有五種。

The Commentary states: Below explains the heterologous class, which has two parts: 1. generally setting forth the essence, and 2. specifically pointing out the property. This is the first. 'Locus' refers to a place, namely all other phenomena aside from the thesis; its entity spans presence and absence. If one establishes a thesis with real existence, the homologous class must have real existence; this is why he previously said 'a class of equal meaning'. The heterologous class spans non-existence, so he says 'that locus'. 'That which is to be established' refers to the inseparability of the thesis. That is to say, if in a locus of phenomena that which is to be established by the reason is absent, it is precisely called the heterologous class; it is not that the distinct absence of the property or subject expressed in that statement is called the heterologous class, for the errors would be as stated before. Here he does not say 'the absence of the property to be established', because previously with respect to the homologous class he had already finished saying 'equal to the property to be established'. This can be known by inference from that, since mere absence of what is to be established already accomplishes the meaning. The Nyāyamukha also says: 'If that which is to be established is absent, it is called the heterologous class.' Mere absence of that which is to be established is precisely the heterologous class; for the homologous class, a locus is not mentioned, because the essence of the heterologous [class] spans non-existence. The Yogācārabhūmi states: 'The heterologous class means that, whatever property it may be, looking toward remaining properties, their characteristics are mutually somewhat dissimilar.' Therefore, it is not that all [aspects] are entirely dissimilar; there is merely absence according to what is appropriate, because of what is established by the reason. In opposition to the homologous, there are also five kinds.