因明入正理論疏 2.12

2.12

《理門論》云：「若爾，喻言應非異分，顯因義故。」古因明師因外有喻，如勝論云：「聲無常宗，所作性因，同喻如瓶，異喻如空。」不舉諸所作者皆無常等貫於二處，故因非喻。瓶為同喻體，空為異喻體。陳那已後，說因三相即攝二喻，二喻即因，俱顯宗故，所作性等貫二處故。古師難云：「若喻亦是因所攝者，喻言應非因外異分，顯因義故。應唯二支，何須二喻？」陳那釋云：「事雖實爾，然此因言唯為顯了是宗法性，非為顯了同品、異品有性無性，故須別說同、異喻言。」意答喻體實是因，爾不應別說。然立因言，正唯為顯宗家法性是宗之因，非正為顯同有異無，順返成於所立宗義。故於因外別說二喻，顯因有處，宗必隨逐，并返成故，令宗義成。

The Nyāyamukha states: 'If so, the words of the example should not be a separate component, because they illuminate the meaning of the reason.' For the ancient masters of hetuvidyā, the example existed outside the reason, as the Vaiśeṣikas say: 'Thesis: sound is impermanent; reason: because of being produced; similar example: like a pot; dissimilar example: like space.' They did not cite 'whatever is produced is impermanent', etc., to run through both places, and therefore the reason was not the example. The pot was the substance of the similar example, and space was the substance of the dissimilar example. From Diṅnāga onward, it is stated that the three characteristics of the reason include the two examples, and the two examples are the reason itself, because both illuminate the thesis, and being produced, etc., runs through both places. The ancient master objected: 'If the example is also included within the reason, then the words of the example should not be a distinct component outside the reason, because they illuminate the meaning of the reason. There should only be two members; why are two examples needed?' Diṅnāga explained: 'Although this is indeed the case in reality, the statement of the reason is only to make clear that it is a property of the subject (pakṣadharmatva), not to make clear the presence or absence in the similar and dissimilar classes; therefore, it is necessary to state separately the words of the similar and dissimilar examples.' The intention is to answer that the substance of the example is indeed the reason, and thus should not be stated separately. However, when formulating the statement of the reason, its primary purpose is solely to reveal that the property of the subject is the reason of the thesis, not primarily to reveal the presence in the similar and absence in the dissimilar, thereby positively and negatively establishing the posited meaning of the thesis. Therefore, outside the reason, the two examples are stated separately to show that where the reason exists, the thesis inevitably follows, and by establishing it through contraposition, the thesis's meaning is brought to completion.