因明入正理論疏 2.15

2.15

古師復問：「何故無能？」陳那難云：「以同喻中不必宗法，宗義相類，此復餘譬所成立故，應成無窮。」意說因喻無能所以。既汝不言諸所作者皆是無常，故彼同喻，不必以因宗法及無常宗義相類，但云如瓶。他若有問：瓶復如何無常？復言如燈。如是展轉，應成無窮，是無能義。我若喻言：諸所作者皆是無常，譬如瓶等。既以宗法、宗義相類，總遍一切瓶、燈等盡，不須更問，故非無窮，成有能也。復難彼言：「又不必定有諸品類。」若但瓶體為同喻者，非燒、見等一切皆類，便成過失。若如我說彼喻依中但以所作無常等類，便無彼過。又難言：「若唯宗法是因性者，其有不定應亦成因。」此意難言：唯以所作遍宗法性是其因性，同有、異無但喻非因，是故瓶空喻非因者，即不定因應亦成因，但有遍宗法、無後二相故。

The ancient master asked again: "Why is it devoid of function?" Diṅnāga objected: "Because in a homogeneous example, the property of the subject and the probandum are not necessarily analogous; and since this would again have to be established by further examples, it would lead to an infinite regress." This explains why the reason and example [as maintained by the ancient master] are devoid of function. Since you do not state that whatever is a product is impermanent, that homogeneous example does not necessarily assimilate the property of the subject [functioning as] the reason with the probandum, impermanence, but merely says, "like a pot." If someone were to ask, "How is a pot impermanent?" you would reply again, "like a lamp." Proceeding successively in this way would lead to an infinite regress; this is the meaning of being devoid of function. If, according to our [formulation], the example states: "Whatever is a product is impermanent, like a pot, etc.," since it assimilates the property of the subject with the probandum and universally covers everything—pots, lamps, and so on—there is no need for further questioning; hence there is no infinite regress, and it is endowed with function. Furthermore, [Diṅnāga] objected to him: "Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that all characteristics are possessed [in common]." If the entity of the pot alone were the homogeneous example, then since burning, visibility, and so forth are not all analogous, this would constitute a fault. If, as I state, one only takes being a product, impermanence, and the like within that locus of the example as analogous, then there is no such fault. Furthermore, he objected: "If the property of the subject alone were the nature of the reason, then that which is inconclusive would also constitute a reason." This objection means: if being the property of the subject alone—[that is, being] a product—constituted the nature of the reason, while presence in the homogeneous and absence in the heterogeneous were merely the example and not the reason, then since the pot and space as examples would not be the reason, an inconclusive reason would also constitute a [valid] reason, because it would possess only presence in the subject and lack the latter two characteristics.