因明入正理論疏 1.39

1.39

古師又有說四能立，謂宗及因，同喻、異喻。世親菩薩《論軌》等，說能立有三：一宗、二因、三喻，以能立者必是多言，多言顯彼所立便足，故但說三。且喻總、別終是見邊，故《對法》言：「立喻者，謂以所見邊與未所見邊和合正說。」師子覺釋：「所見邊者，謂已所顯了分。未所見邊者，謂未所顯了分。」以顯了分顯未顯了分，令義平等，所有正說名為立喻。故總說一喻已令所立見邊，何假別開或三或二？喻中無合，義乃不明。倒合倒成，故說為過。離因及喻，都無勝體，故不說在真能立中，但說因初，喻隨其後，合義已明。重說有結，一何煩長？故總略之。

Ancient masters also spoke of four valid proofs: namely, the proposition, the reason, the homogeneous example, and the heterogeneous example. Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, in the Vādavidhi and other texts, stated that valid proofs are three: first, the proposition; second, the reason; third, the example. Because a valid proof must consist of multiple statements, and multiple statements are sufficient to make that thesis to be established manifest, he stated only three. Moreover, whether the example is general or particular, it is ultimately a 'known margin' (dṛṣṭānta-paryanta). Thus the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'Setting up an example means harmonizing and correctly stating the seen margin alongside the unseen margin.' Buddhasiṃha explained: 'The seen margin refers to the already fully manifested part. The unseen margin refers to the not-yet fully manifested part.' Using the fully manifested part to reveal the not-yet fully manifested part so that their significance becomes equal, whatever correct statement [is made] is called setting up an example. Therefore, speaking of one example in general already brings the thesis to be proved to its seen margin; what need is there to open it up into either three or two? Without application within the example, the meaning would indeed not be clear; inverted application leads to inverted establishment, and hence it is called a fault. Apart from the reason and the example, [application and conclusion] have no superior substance at all; hence they are not spoken of among genuine valid proofs. Merely stating the reason first and the example following it already clarifies the meaning of the application. To restate it with a conclusion—how superfluous and lengthy that would be! Hence they are omitted in general.