因明入正理論疏 1.78

1.78

釋次難言：先陳有法，立敵無違，此上別義兩家乖競，乖競之義彼此相違，可生軌解，名之為法。非所諍競，彼此無軌，逕廷自體，無別軌解，但名有法。談其實理，先陳後說，皆具二義。依其增勝，論與別名，故前陳者名有法，後陳者名法。故《理門論》云：「觀所成故，立法有法，非德有德。」法與有法一切不定，但先陳皆有法，後說皆名法，觀所立故。非如勝論，德及有德一切決定。

To resolve the second objection, we say: Concerning the possessor of the property stated first, proponent and opponent do not disagree; but with respect to the distinct attribute predicated upon it, the two parties contend in conflict. An attribute that is in conflict opposes one another, and can generate a model of understanding; thus it is termed a "property" (dharma). That which is not in dispute has no model between the two parties, but directly maintains its own entity without generating a distinct model of understanding; thus it is only called the "possessor of a property" (dharmin). Speaking of the actual truth, both what is stated first and what is said subsequently possess both functions. In accordance with predominance, the treatise assigns them distinct names; therefore what is stated first is called the "possessor of a property" and what is stated subsequently is called the "property". Hence the Nyāyamukha states: 'Properties and possessors of properties are posited in view of what is to be established (sādhya), not as qualities (guṇa) and possessors of qualities (guṇin).' Properties and possessors of properties are not entirely fixed: whatever is stated first is the possessor of a property, and whatever is said subsequently is termed a property, in view of what is established. It is not like the Vaiśeṣikas, where qualities and possessors of qualities are entirely fixed.