因明入正理論疏 2.117

2.117

述曰：初一句因體，次一句辯宗，後一句結過。能立共許，不須更成，可成所立。既非共許，應更須成，故非能立。宗與前同，故唯敘因。若勝論師對聲顯論立聲無常，所作性因；其聲顯論，說聲緣顯，不許緣生。所作既生，由斯不許，故成隨一，非為共因。問：「亦有傳釋所作通顯，云何此因名為隨一？」答：「依文釋義，深達聖情；理外浪加，未可依據。此之所作對聲顯論不成，故所作言必唯生義。」

The commentary says: The first clause is the substance of the reason, the next clause identifies the thesis, and the final clause concludes the fault. What is mutually accepted as a proof need not be established further and can establish what is to be established. Since it is not mutually accepted, it must further be established, hence it is not a proof. The thesis is the same as before, hence only the reason is recounted. If a Vaiśeṣika formulates against the Śabdābhivyaktivāda that sound is impermanent, using the reason 'because of being produced'; the Śabdābhivyaktivāda maintains that sound is manifested by conditions and does not accept that it is generated by conditions. Since 'produced' means generated, because of this they do not accept it; therefore it becomes unestablished for either, and is not a common reason. Question: 'There is also a traditional interpretation that "produced" encompasses manifestation; why is this reason called unestablished for either?' Answer: 'Interpreting the meaning according to the text penetrates deeply into the holy intention; arbitrarily adding interpretations outside of reason cannot be relied upon. Since this "produced" is unestablished against the Śabdābhivyaktivāda, the word "produced" must strictly mean generated.'