因明入正理論疏 1.17

1.17

二問：「真因真明，可說因明。似因似明，應非因明。」答：「舉真攝似，或已攝故，或兼明之，非正明故。」

Second question: "A true reason and true illumination may properly be called hetuvidyā. A fallacious reason (hetvābhāsa) and fallacious illumination should not be hetuvidyā." Answer: "Because mentioning the true encompasses the fallacious; or because it has already subsumed them; or because it illuminates them collaterally, not as primary illumination."