因明入正理論疏 1.38

1.38

明古今同異者，初能立中，《瑜伽》十五、《顯揚》十一，說有八種：一立宗、二辨因、三引喻、四同類、五異類、六現量、七比量、八正教。《對法》亦說有八：一立宗、二立因、三立喻、四合、五結、六現量、七比量、八聖教，皆以自性差別而為所立。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》八能立中，三引喻者，總也；同類、異類者，別也。於總比況假類法中，別引順違同品、異品而為二喻。總別有殊，分為三種，離因、喻外無別合、結，故略合、結而不別開。《對法》無著八為能立，順前師故，以因總、別既無離合，喻之總、別何假合離？故總說一，不開二喻。離喻既虧，故加合、結。合、結雖離，因喻非有，令所立義重得增明，故須別立。喻過既說無合、倒合，翻立真支理須有合。合既別立，結亦須彰，由此亦八。

Regarding explaining the agreements and differences between the ancients and moderns: First, within the valid proof (sādhana), the fifteenth [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi and the eleventh of the Prakaraṇāryavācā state eight types: first, stating the proposition (pratijñā); second, discerning the reason (hetu); third, adducing the example (dṛṣṭānta); fourth, the homogeneous (sādharmya); fifth, the heterogeneous (vaidharmya); sixth, direct perception (pratyakṣa); seventh, inference (anumāna); and eighth, correct scriptural authority (āptāgama). The Abhidharmasamuccaya also states eight: first, stating the proposition; second, stating the reason; third, stating the example; fourth, application (upanaya); fifth, conclusion (nigamana); sixth, direct perception; seventh, inference; and eighth, noble scriptural authority—all taking the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) and specific distinction (viśeṣa) as the thesis to be proved (sādhya). Among the eight valid proofs of the Yogācārabhūmi and the Prakaraṇāryavācā, the third, 'adducing the example', is general, whereas 'homogeneous' and 'heterogeneous' are particular. Out of the general metaphorical and analogical categories, they separately adduce the concordant and discordant—the sapakṣa and vipakṣa—to serve as the two examples. Because the general and the particular differ, they are divided into three types. Apart from the reason and the example, there are no separate application or conclusion; hence application and conclusion are condensed and not set up separately. In the Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asanga counts eight as valid proofs, following earlier masters: since the reason has no separation or combination of general and particular, why would the general and particular of the example need to be combined or separated? Therefore, he speaks of one in general and does not open up two examples. Since the negative example (vaidharmya-dṛṣṭānta) is lacking, he adds application and conclusion. Although application and conclusion do not exist apart from the reason and example, because they cause the thesis to be established to become increasingly clear, they must be set up separately. Since faults of the example include 'lacking application' and 'inverted application', the establishment of a genuine member conversely requires an application. Since application is separately established, conclusion must also be displayed; hence these are also eight.