因明入正理論疏 2.147

2.147

上為釋難，未破前量。彼破前云「一向離故」。向者，面也、邊也、相也。即因三相，亦名三向、三面、三邊。此所聞性唯闕一相，謂同品定有，由此宗法決定相違。前有諸師立《理門論》破比量云：所聞性因是不定因，宗也；闕一相故；猶如共等四種不定，喻也，此四皆闕異品遍無之一相故。若作此解，有不定過，非決定相違。彼不共因，為如共等，闕一相故，是不定攝。為如隨一不成，闕一相故，非不定攝。如對聲顯立「聲無常，所作性故，如瓶盆等。」此因但闕初之一相，非不定攝，如何乃以闕一相因為相違量？應與初量作不定過，此不共因為如二、八，異品無故，非不定攝。為如三、九，異品無故，是不定因。與前第二作不定云：此不共因，為如四、六，同品無故，非不定因？為如七、九，同品無故，是不定因？前因總言同、異品有無，不為簡別，故有不定。由此彼因應言異品遍無故，同品遍無故。既遮不定，便無彼失。

The above answered the objection, but did not refute the previous inference. That [treatise] refutes the former by saying: "Because it is entirely separated." "Orientation" (*xiàng*) means a side, a boundary, a characteristic. That is, the three characteristics of the reason are also called three orientations, three faces, three sides. This audibility lacks only one characteristic, namely, definitive presence in the homologous class; thereby it is a contradictory-in-conclusion regarding the property of the subject. Previously, some masters formulated an inference to refute the *Nyāyamukha*, saying: The reason of audibility is an inconclusive reason, proposition; because it lacks one characteristic; just like the four inconclusive reasons such as the common, example—because these four all lack the single characteristic of complete absence from the heterologous class. If one interprets it thus, there is the fault of being inconclusive, not a contradictory-in-conclusion. Is that uncommon reason, like the common and others, included among the inconclusive because it lacks one characteristic? Or is it, like the partially unestablished, not included among the inconclusive because it lacks one characteristic? As when, against the Śabdābhivyaktivāda, one establishes: "Sound is non-eternal, because of being produced, like a pot, basin, and so forth." This reason merely lacks the first characteristic, yet is not included among the inconclusive; how then could a reason lacking one characteristic be made into a contradictory inference? One should counter the first inference with the fault of being inconclusive: Is this uncommon reason, like numbers two and eight, not included among the inconclusive because of absence from the heterologous class? Or is it, like numbers three and nine, an inconclusive reason because of absence from the heterologous class? One should counter the second previous one with being inconclusive: Is this uncommon reason, like numbers four and six, not an inconclusive reason because of absence from the homologous class? Or is it, like numbers seven and nine, an inconclusive reason because of absence from the homologous class? The previous reason broadly spoke of presence or absence in homologous and heterologous classes without qualifying it; hence it is inconclusive. Therefore, their reason should say "because of complete absence from the heterologous class" and "because of complete absence from the homologous class." Once the inconclusiveness is blocked, it is free from that fault.