因明入正理論疏 1.71

1.71

述曰：下示相有四：一顯依、二出體、三簡濫、四結成。此顯依也。極者，至也。成者，就也。至極成就，故名極成。有法、能別但是宗依，而非是宗。此依必須兩宗至極共許成就，為依義立，宗體方成。所依若無，能依何立？由此宗依必須共許，共許名為至極成就，至理有故，法本真故。若許有法、能別二種非兩共許，便有二過：一、成異義過，謂能立本欲立此二上不相離性和合之宗，不欲成立宗二所依，所依若非，先兩共許便更須立，此不成依，乃則能立成於異義，非成本宗，故宗所依必須共許，依之宗性方非極成，極成便是立無果故。更有餘過，若許能別非兩極成，闕宗支故，非為圓成，因中必有是因同品非定有性過，必闕同喻，同喻皆有所立不成，異喻一分或遍轉過。若許有法非兩極成，闕宗支故，亦非圓成，能別無依，是誰之法？因中亦有所依隨一兩俱不成。由此宗依必依共許，能依宗性方非極成，能立成之，本所諍故。

The commentary states: Below, in presenting the characteristics, there are four points: first, revealing the basis; second, identifying the essence; third, setting aside ambiguities; fourth, concluding the establishment. This reveals the basis. "Extreme" (極) means utmost. "Established" (成) means accomplished. Being accomplished to the utmost is therefore called "thoroughly established" (極成). The subject (dharmin) and the predicate (dharma) are merely the bases of the thesis (pakṣa-āśraya), not the thesis itself. These bases must be recognized and established as agreed upon to the utmost by both parties; only when established as the basis of the meaning does the essence of the thesis come to be accomplished. If the basis does not exist, how can that which is based upon it be established? Therefore, the basis of the thesis must be mutually accepted; mutual acceptance is termed "accomplished to the utmost," because it exists in the highest principle and the phenomenon is fundamentally real. If one allows that the two—subject and predicate—are not mutually accepted by both parties, there will be two faults: First, the fault of proving an alien meaning: the proof originally intends to establish the qualified thesis of the inseparable connection between these two, not to establish the two bases of the thesis. If the bases are not mutually accepted by both beforehand, they must be established further; these would not be established bases, and the proof would then prove an alien meaning instead of proving its original thesis. Therefore, the bases of the thesis must be mutually accepted; only then is the nature of the thesis based upon them not thoroughly established—for if [the whole thesis] were thoroughly established, establishing it would be without purpose. There are further faults: if one allows that the predicate is not thoroughly established by both, because a member of the thesis is lacking, it is not completely accomplished; in the reason, there will necessarily be the fault that the reason is not necessarily present in the similar class of the thesis, and the similar example will inevitably be lacking, the similar examples all having [the fault of] the unproven probandum, and the dissimilar example having the fault of occurring in part or occurring entirely. If one allows that the subject is not thoroughly established by both, because a member of the thesis is lacking, it is also not completely accomplished; since the predicate has no basis, whose attribute would it be? In the reason, there will also be [the fallacy of] the unproven basis, either for one party or for both. Therefore, the bases of the thesis must depend on mutual acceptance; only then is the nature of the thesis based upon them not thoroughly established, so that the proof may establish it, as it is the original matter of dispute.