因明入正理論疏 1.43

1.43

第二釋云：陳那菩薩以能別不成，即是因中不共、不定等過，亦是喻中所立不成、闕無同喻等過。所別不成，有法無故，即因過中所依不成過。其俱不極成，即合是二過。相符極成者，凡所立論，名義相違，既曰相符，便非所立，本非宗故。依何立過？如諸俗人，不受戒者非受戒類，依何說有持戒破戒？是故不說後之四過。今者天主加能別不成，以宗合取不相離性，方得成宗。若非能別，誰不相離？若以因中是不共、不定等，亦是喻中所立不成，恐繁重故不須說者；因中已有闕同品、有不共等過，喻中復說能立不成，一何鄭重，是故加之。天主復加所別不成者，若以是因所依不成，亦恐重故，略不須說者；因中已有異品遍轉等不定過，及是異品非遍無過，異喻之中更何須說能立不遣？何廢宗過亦為因過？餘難同前，是故加之。

The second explanation says: Bodhisattva Diṅnāga considered the unestablished predicate (viśeṣaṇāsiddha) to be identical to faults within the reason such as the uncommon (asādhāraṇa) and inconclusive (anaikāntika), and also identical to faults within the example such as unestablished sādhya (sādhyāsiddha) and the fault of lacking a homogeneous example. The unestablished subject (viśeṣyāsiddha), because the subject (dharmin) does not exist, is identical to the fault of the unestablished substratum (āśrayāsiddha) among the faults of the reason. The unestablished in both (ubhayāsiddha) is the combination of these two faults. As for established by consensus (siddhasādhana): in whatever debate is set up, the name and meaning must be contested; since it is already agreed upon, it is not something to be proved, for it was never a proposition to begin with. On what basis could a fault be established? Just as worldly people who have not received the precepts do not belong to the category of those who have received the precepts, on what basis could one say they maintain or violate the precepts? For this reason, the latter four faults were not mentioned. Now, Śaṅkarasvāmin adds the unestablished predicate, because only when the proposition combines and takes the inseparable nature does it manage to form a proposition. If there is no predicate, what is inseparable? If one were to argue that because within the reason it is uncommon, inconclusive, and so forth, and within the example it is unestablished sādhya, it need not be mentioned for fear of redundancy: within the reason there already exist faults such as lacking sapakṣa and being uncommon, yet within the example one again mentions unestablished sādhana—how emphatic that is! Therefore it is added. Śaṅkarasvāmin further adds the unestablished subject: if one were to argue that because it is the reason's fault of unestablished substratum, it should also be omitted for fear of redundancy: within the reason there are already inconclusive faults such as the reason occurring in all vipakṣa, and the fault of not being entirely absent from vipakṣa; why then would one still need to mention in the negative example that the sādhana is not excluded (sādhanāvyāvṛtta)? What would prevent a fault of the proposition from also being a fault of the reason? The remaining objections are the same as before; therefore it is added.