因明入正理論疏 1.76

1.76

若爾，此三名皆有失。其失者何？難初名云：若體名自性、義名差別者，何故下云「如數論師立我是思？」我為自性，思為差別，彼文便以義為自性、體為差別，我、無我等分別思故。難次名云：若具一義得有法名，若具二義但名法者，如即此師立我是思，何故思唯一義乃名為法、我具二義得有法名？難後名云：若以後陳別彼前說，前為所別、後為能別，如世說言青色蓮花，但言青色不言蓮花，不知何青？為衣、為樹、為瓶等青？唯言蓮花不言青色，不知何花，為赤、為白、為紅等花？今言青者，簡赤等華。言蓮花者，簡衣等青。先陳後說，更互有簡，互為所別，互為能別。此亦應爾，後陳別前，前陳別後，應互名為能別所別。

If so, all three sets of terms have faults. What are their faults? Refuting the first set of terms, one objects: 'If the real entity (dravya/vastu) is termed intrinsic nature and the attribute (artha) is termed distinction, why does [the text] state below: "As when the Sāṃkhya establishes that the self is sentience (cetanā)"? The self is the intrinsic nature and sentience is the distinction; there the text takes the attribute to be the intrinsic nature and the real entity to be the distinction, since sentience is distinguished as self or non-self, etc.' Refuting the second set of terms, one objects: 'If possessing one function earns the name "possessor of a property" (dharmin), and possessing two functions only is called "property" (dharma), then as when this same master establishes that the self is sentience, why is sentience called "property" when it possesses only one function, and the self receives the name "possessor of a property" when it possesses both functions?' Refuting the last set of terms, one objects: 'If what is stated subsequently qualifies what was stated prior, so that the prior is the qualificand and the subsequent is the qualifier—as when the world speaks of a "blue lotus", if one only says "blue" and does not say "lotus", one does not know what blue it is: is it the blue of a garment, a tree, a pot, or the like? If one only says "lotus" and does not say "blue", one does not know what flower it is: is it red, white, pink, or another flower? Now, saying "blue" delimits [it from] red and other flowers; saying "lotus" delimits [it from] the blue of garments and the like. What is stated first and what is said subsequently mutually delimit each other; mutually they are qualificand, and mutually they are qualifier. Here it should likewise be so: what is stated subsequently qualifies the prior, and what is stated first qualifies the subsequent; thus both should mutually be termed qualifier and qualificand.'