因明入正理論疏 1.79

1.79

釋第三難言：前後所陳互相簡別，皆應得名能別、所別，如成宗言差別性故。然前陳者非所乖諍，後說於上彼此相違。今陳兩諍，但體上義，故以前陳名為所別，後名能別，亦約增勝以得其名。又但先陳，真名自性、有法、所別。但是後說，皆名差別法及能別。但諍後於前，非諍前於後故，舉後方諍，非舉前諍故，能立立於後，不立於前故，起智了不由前故。由此得名，前後各定。

To resolve the third objection, we say: What is stated first and subsequently mutually delimit each other, so both ought to be called qualifier and qualificand, just as when establishing a thesis [the text says] 'because it is of a distinct nature'. However, what is stated first is not what is in dispute; what is subsequently predicated of it is what opposes each other. Now, stating the two disputants' conflict concerns only an attribute upon that entity; therefore what is stated first is termed the qualificand and what is subsequent is termed the qualifier, which also derives its name based on predominance. Furthermore, whatever is stated first is truly called intrinsic nature, possessor of a property, and qualificand; whatever is said subsequently is without exception termed distinction, property, and qualifier. It is only because the subsequent is disputed with respect to the prior, not the prior with respect to the subsequent; because dispute is raised only by bringing up the subsequent, not by bringing up the prior; because that which proves (sādhana) proves the subsequent and does not prove the prior; and because the arising of cognitive illumination does not proceed from the prior. It is from this that their names are derived, and both the prior and subsequent are each fixed.