因明入正理論疏 1.80

1.80

問：「前陳後說既各三名，何故極成，初言有法、後言能別，不以自性、差別名顯？又復不以法及有法、能別所別相對為名，而各舉一有法、能別？」答：「初有三釋：一云：設致餘名，必有此難。隨舉一種，何假為徵？二云：有法能有他勝，故先陳舉，明必有後法以釋於前陳。能別別於他勝，此宗後陳必與彼宗後陳義異，以後所說能別前陳，故後舉能別。三云：自性、差別，諸法之上共假通名。有法、能別，宗中別稱，偏舉別名，隱餘通號，亦不相違。答後難言：前舉有法影顯後法，後舉能別影前所別，二燈二炬、二影二光，互舉一名，相影發故，欲令文約而義繁故，宗之別名皆具顯故，攝名已周，理實無咎。」

Question: 'Since what is stated first and what is said subsequently each have three names, why, when speaking of being universally accepted (prasiddha / apratīta), does it state "possessor of a property" for the first and "qualifier" for the subsequent, rather than expressing them with the terms "intrinsic nature" and "distinction"? And furthermore, why does it not use the pairs "property and possessor of a property" or "qualifier and qualificand" as correlative terms, but instead cites one "possessor of a property" and one "qualifier"?' Answer: 'Regarding the first, there are three explanations: First, it is said: Even if other terms had been employed, there would inevitably be this objection. Since any one pair may be cited at will, what need is there to interrogate it? Second, it is said: The possessor of a property can hold an overriding quality (predominance); thus it is cited first to show that there must be a subsequent property to explain what was stated first. The qualifier qualifies that overriding quality; the subsequent predicate of this thesis must differ in meaning from the subsequent predicate of the opposing thesis. Because what is said subsequently can qualify what was stated first, the qualifier is cited subsequently. Third, it is said: "Intrinsic nature" and "distinction" are common designations applied conventionally across all phenomena; "possessor of a property" and "qualifier" are specific designations within the thesis. Highlighting specific names while leaving aside other common designations is likewise not contradictory. In answering the second objection: Mentioning the possessor of a property first casts a shadow that reveals the subsequent property; mentioning the qualifier subsequently casts a shadow back to reveal the prior qualificand. Like two lamps and two torches, two shadows and two lights, by mutually citing one name each, they illuminate and reveal each other. Because it is desired that the text be concise while the meaning is rich, and so that the distinct names of the thesis are fully revealed, the encompassing of the names is already complete, and in truth there is no fault.'