因明入正理論疏 1.63

1.63

問：「何故能立要在多言？一二之言寧非能立？」答：「《理門論》云：『於論式等說此多言，名能立故。』世親所造論軌、論式，彼說多言名為能立。今不違古，故說多言。彼論復言：『又比量中唯見此理，若所比處，此相定遍，於餘同類念此定有，於彼無處念此遍無，是故由此生決定解。』因之三相既宗法性，同有異無顯義圓具，必籍多言，故說多言名為能立。又一二之言，宗由未立，多言義具，所立方成。若但說因，無同喻比，義不明顯，何得見邊？若但同無異，雖比附宗，能立之因或返成法，無異止濫，何能建宗？設有兩喻，闕遍宗因，宗法既自不成，宗義何由得立？果宗不決，因比徒施，空致紛紜，競何由消？故詳今古，能立具足，要藉多言。」

Question: "Why must proof reside in multiple statements? How could one or two statements not be proof?" Answer: "The Nyāyamukha says: 'Because in the Vādavidhi and so forth, these multiple statements are said to be proof.' In the Vādavidhi and Vādayukti composed by Vasubandhu, he said that multiple statements are called proof. Now, so as not to contradict antiquity, it says 'multiple statements'. That treatise further says: 'Moreover, in inference one sees only this principle: if in the subject of inference, this characteristic is definitely pervasive; in other similar instances, one recalls that this definitely exists; in those places where it is absent, one recalls that this is pervasively absent—therefore, from this, decisive comprehension is generated.' Since the three characteristics of the reason—the property of the subject (pakṣadharmatā), presence in the similar (sapakṣasattva), and absence in the dissimilar (vipakṣāsattva)—reveal that the meaning is complete, they necessarily depend on multiple statements; therefore, it states that multiple statements are called proof. Furthermore, through one or two statements, the thesis is not yet established; when the meaning of multiple statements is complete, what is to be proved is only then accomplished. If one only states the reason without comparing it to a similar example, the meaning is not obvious; how could one see the perimeter? If there is only a similar example without a dissimilar example, although it parallels the thesis, the proving reason might conversely establish [another] property; without a dissimilar example to arrest confusion, how could one establish the thesis? Even if there are two examples, if the reason pervasive in the thesis is lacking, since the property of the thesis is not itself established, how could the meaning of the thesis be established? When the result—the thesis—is not determined, applying the reason and comparison is in vain, resulting in confusion for nothing; how could disputes be resolved? Therefore, examining both past and present, for proof to be complete, it must rely on multiple statements."