因明入正理論疏 2.134

2.134

因三相中，後二相過，於所成宗及宗相違二品之中不定成故，名為不定。若立一因，於同異品皆有，名共；皆無，名不共。同分異全是第三。同全異分是第四。同異俱分是第五。若二別因，三相雖具，各自決定，成相違宗，令敵、證智不隨一定，名相違決定。初五過中，唯第二過是因三相第二相失，於宗同品非定有故。餘四皆是第三相失，謂於異品非遍無故。後一並非，至下當知。

Among the three characteristics of the reason, the fallacies of the latter two characteristics fail to establish decisively between the two classes—the thesis to be established and that which contradicts the thesis; hence they are named indeterminate. If one sets up a reason that is present in both sapakṣa and vipakṣa, it is called common; if it is absent in both, it is called uncommon. Present in a part of the similar and the whole of the dissimilar is the third. Present in the whole of the similar and a part of the dissimilar is the fourth. Present in parts of both similar and dissimilar is the fifth. If two distinct reasons, although possessing the three characteristics, each decisively establish contradictory theses, causing the cognition of the opponent and the arbiter not to be settled on either one, it is called contradictory and decisive. Among the first five fallacies, only the second fallacy is a failure of the second characteristic among the three characteristics of the reason, because it is not definitely present in the sapakṣa of the thesis. The remaining four are all failures of the third characteristic, meaning they are not pervasively absent in the vipakṣa. The last one is neither, as will be understood below.