因明入正理論疏 1.148

1.148

問：「何故前說宗之同品不兼定有，此釋異品兼解遍無？」答：「有二解：一者、影彰，同品之中但為簡別因之同品，顯異亦爾，不要解於定無之相，故文略之。異品之中乘言便故，兼釋遍無。顯同亦爾。二者、同品順成，但許有因，即成同品，易故不解決定有性。異品止濫，必顯遍無方成止濫，故解異品兼解遍無同品因也，為顯同異二品別故。」

Question: 'Why did the previous discussion of the homologous class of the thesis not concurrently include definite presence (sapakṣa eva sattva), whereas this explanation of the heterologous class concurrently explains pervasive absence?' Answer: 'There are two explanations: First, it is an implicit indication: in the homologous class, it was merely to distinguish the homologous class of the reason, and revealing the heterologous is also like this; it is not necessary to explain the characteristic of definite absence, so the text abbreviates it. In the heterologous class, taking advantage of the phrasing, it concurrently explains pervasive absence; it also reveals the homologous in the same way. Second, the homologous class is a concordant establishment: so long as one accepts the presence of the reason, it constitutes the homologous class; because it is easy, he does not explain the nature of definite presence. The heterologous class stops ambiguity: only when pervasive absence is necessarily revealed is the stopping of ambiguity accomplished; therefore, in explaining the heterologous class, he concurrently explains the pervasive absence of the reason of the homologous class, in order to reveal the distinction between the two classes, homologous and heterologous.'