因明入正理論疏 2.110

2.110

述曰：下依標釋為二：初列三名、後隨別釋。此初也。能立之因不能成宗，或本非因，不成因義，名為不成。或成所立，或同異宗，無楷准，名不定。能立之因違害宗義，返成異品，名相違。雖因三相，隨應有過，俱不能成宗，應皆名不成。若後二相俱有、俱無、異全同分、同全異分、俱分，難准，不能定成一宗，令義無所決斷，與名不決定。若後二相同無異遍，異分同無，不成所立，返成異品，與名相違。若是初相，於宗有失，不能成宗，無別勝用，與名不成。若因自不成名不成，非不能成宗名不成者，因是誰因？言自不成，離宗獨說有因，可因自不成。因既是宗因，有過不能堪為因，明知不能成宗，名不成。又若因自不成名不成，亦應喻自不成名不成，非不能成宗，因名不成，能立不成等便徒施設。又文說不成之義皆因於宗不成，故知不成非自不成，是故應如此中所說。或理釋言，因之與喻並自不成。兩俱非因，隨一非因，於因生疑，因無所依，喻無能立，或無所立，或二俱無，義不明顯，體不成喻。由此因、喻並自不成，理亦無失。

The commentary says: The following explanation according to the heading has two parts: first, listing the three names; second, explaining each separately. This is the first. When a reason that is a proof is incapable of establishing the thesis, or is originally not a reason and does not accomplish the meaning of a reason, it is called 'unestablished'. When it either establishes what is to be established or conforms to a different thesis, lacking a definitive standard, it is called 'indeterminate'. When a reason that is a proof contradicts and harms the meaning of the thesis, contrariwise establishing the dissimilar class (vipakṣa), it is called 'contrary'. Although, when any of the three characteristics of the reason (trairūpya) has a fault according to the circumstance, none can establish the thesis and all should be called 'unestablished'; yet if the latter two characteristics are both present, both absent, dissimilar-whole and similar-partial, similar-whole and dissimilar-partial, or both-partial, being difficult to determine and incapable of definitively establishing one thesis, leaving the meaning unresolved, it is given the name 'indeterminate'. If the latter two characteristics are similar-absent and dissimilar-pervasive, or dissimilar-partial and similar-absent, not establishing what is to be established but contrariwise establishing the dissimilar class, it is given the name 'contrary'. If it is the first characteristic having a defect with respect to the thesis, being unable to establish the thesis and having no other distinct function, it is given the name 'unestablished'. If a reason being unestablished in itself were called 'unestablished', and not being unable to establish the thesis were called 'unestablished', then whose reason would the reason be? If one says it is unestablished in itself, only if a reason were stated alone apart from the thesis could the reason be unestablished in itself. Since the reason is the reason of the thesis, when it has a fault and cannot serve as a reason, it is clear that being unable to establish the thesis is called 'unestablished'. Furthermore, if a reason being unestablished in itself were called 'unestablished', then an example (dṛṣṭānta) being unestablished in itself should also be called 'unestablished'; instead of being unable to establish the thesis, the reason being called 'unestablished' would make designations like 'unestablished proof' (sādhana-asiddha) established in vain. Moreover, the textual explanations of the meaning of 'unestablished' all concern being unestablished with respect to the thesis; hence one knows that 'unestablished' is not unestablished in itself; therefore it should be as stated here. Or, as a rational explanation, both the reason and the example are unestablished in themselves: neither is a reason, either one is not a reason, doubt arises concerning the reason, the reason lacks a basis, the example lacks the probans (sādhana), or lacks the probandum (sādhya), or both are absent; the meaning is not clarified, and their substance does not constitute an example. Therefore, that both reason and example are unestablished in themselves is also logically without error.