因明入正理論疏 1.88

1.88

問：「互相差別則為宗性，何假此中須說故字？」答：「故者，所以。此有二義：一、簡古說，但以能別或但所別，或雙以二而為共宗。陳那簡之，皆非宗諍，取此二上互相差別不相離性所諍之義，方成宗故。其能別等，彼先共許，非兩所諍，皆非是宗。為簡古師，遂說故字。二、釋所依，釋前有法及以能別極成之言，但以有法及法互相差別不相離性，一許一不許而為宗故。宗之所依，有法、能別皆須極成，由此宗中說其故字。不爾，所依須更成立哉。或有於此不悟所由，遂改論云差別為性。非直違因明之軌轍，亦乃闇唐梵之方言，輒改論文，深為可責。彌天釋道安法師，尚商略於翻譯，為五失、三不易，云：『結集之羅漢兢兢若此，末代之凡夫平平若是，改千代之上微言，同百王之下末俗，豈不痛哉！』況非翻經之侶，但是膚受之輩，誑後徒之幼識，誘初學之童蒙，妄率胸襟，迴換聖教，當來慧眼定永不生，現在智心由斯自滅。諸有學者應閑此義。依舊正云差別性故。」

Question: "If mutual qualification constitutes the nature of the thesis, why is it necessary to add the word 'because' (hetu / gù) here?" Answer: "'Because' indicates the reason. This has two meanings: First, it eliminates the ancient views that took only the qualifier, or only the qualified, or both together as the thesis. Diṅnāga eliminated them because none of them is the disputed point of the thesis; only by taking the disputed meaning—the inseparable nature of mutual qualification between these two—is a thesis constituted. As for the qualifier and so forth, they were already mutually accepted beforehand and not disputed by both sides; none of them is the thesis. To eliminate [the views of] the ancient masters, the word 'because' was added. Second, it explains the bases [of the thesis]: it explains the prior statement that the subject and the qualifier must be mutually established. Because only the inseparable nature of the mutual qualification of subject and predicate—where one accepts it and the other does not—is the thesis, the bases of the thesis (the subject and the qualifier) must both be mutually established; on this account, the word 'because' is spoken in [the definition of] the thesis. Were it not so, would the bases themselves have to be established further? Furthermore, some who failed to understand this reasoning emended the treatise to read 'has distinction as its nature' (chābié wéi xìng). This not only violates the rules of hetuvidyā, but also shows ignorance of the idioms of Chinese and Sanskrit; arbitrarily emending the text of the treatise is deeply blameworthy. Even Dharma Master Dao'an, whose fame filled the heavens, was cautious when considering translation, formulating the 'five losses and three difficulties' and saying: 'The arhats who compiled the scriptures were so scrupulous, while the ordinary people of the degenerate age are so careless; altering the subtle words of a thousand generations past to conform to the vulgar conventions beneath a hundred kings—is this not lamentable!' How much more so for those who are not even translators, but mere shallow pretenders who deceive the youthful intellects of subsequent students and mislead beginners: arbitrarily indulging their own biases and altering the sacred teachings, their future eye of wisdom will surely never be born, and their present wise mind will thereby extinguish itself. All scholars should understand this meaning: the old, correct reading is 'because of its qualified nature' (viśeṣatvāt)."