因明入正理論疏 2.160

2.160

此亦有三：如小乘等對大乘立他比量云：「汝之藏識非異熟識，執識性故，如彼第七等。」此非異熟識宗，以除異熟六識外餘一切法而為同品。執識性因，於第七等有，於色、聲等無。異熟六識而為異品，執識性因，於彼遍有，故是他同分異全。如薩婆多對大乘立自比量云：「我之命根定是實有，許無緣慮故，如許色、聲等。」此實有宗以餘五蘊、無為等為同品，無緣慮因，於色等有，於識等無。以瓶、盆等而為異品，無緣慮因於彼遍有，故是自同分異全。如論所陳，即是共同分異全。

This also has three types: as when a Hīnayāna adherent establishes a parānumāna against the Mahāyāna, saying: "Your ālayavijñāna is not a vipākavijñāna, because you hold it to have the nature of consciousness, like that seventh [consciousness] and the like." For this proposition of not being a vipākavijñāna, all phenomena other than the six vipāka consciousnesses are taken as the homologous class. The reason "held to have the nature of consciousness" exists in the seventh consciousness and the like, but is absent in form, sound, and so on. The six vipāka consciousnesses are the heterologous class; the reason "held to have the nature of consciousness" exists in all of them. Therefore, it is parānumāna-partially homologous and wholly heterologous. As when a Sarvāstivādin establishes a svānumāna against the Mahāyāna, saying: "My life-faculty is definitely a real entity, because it is accepted as lacking intentional cognition, just like the accepted form, sound, and the like." For this proposition of being a real entity, the remaining five aggregates, unconditioned dharmas, and the like are taken as the homologous class; the reason "lacking intentional cognition" exists in form and the like, but is absent in consciousness and the like. Pots, basins, and the like are taken as the heterologous class; the reason "lacking intentional cognition" exists in all of them. Therefore, it is svānumāna-partially homologous and wholly heterologous. What the treatise presents is ubhayānumāna-partially homologous and wholly heterologous.