因明入正理論疏 1.97

1.97

問：「何故宗內獨言樂為，因、喻不說？」答：「似宗、因、喻當更成立，可以為宗。今顯當時所諍為宗，不以彼為，故言樂為，簡彼三似宗、似因、喻。設今及後俱不可說為因，為喻亦爾。若更立之，只是宗攝，不說樂為。設更成立以為宗訖，義既成已方為因、喻，展轉疎成，不同於宗，故於因、喻不說樂為。又於宗內說樂為言，簡似周訖，因、喻略之。又宗有諍，以更須成，宗義相濫，故獨言樂為。因、喻必須極成，不成便非因、喻，無所濫故不言樂為。」

Question: "Why does the thesis alone state 'intended as', while the reason and example do not say it?" Answer: "Pseudo-theses, reasons, and examples, when they are to be further established, could be taken as theses. Now, to show that what is contested at that very moment is the thesis and not those, it says 'intended as', excluding those three pseudo-theses, pseudo-reasons, and pseudo-examples. Even if both present and future could not be stated, the same applies to reason and example: if they are further established, they are merely subsumed under the thesis, so 'intended as' is not stated. Even if they are further established as theses, once their meaning is established, only then do they become reason and example; being indirectly established through successive steps, they are not like the thesis; thus 'intended as' is not stated for the reason and example. Furthermore, stating the word 'intended' in the thesis exhaustively eliminates pseudo-forms, so it is omitted for the reason and example. Moreover, the thesis has dispute and needs further establishment, so its meaning easily causes confusion; therefore, it alone states 'intended as'. The reason and example must be mutually established; if not established, they are not reason and example at all; having no ambiguity, 'intended as' is not stated for them."