因明入正理論疏 2.18

2.18

問：「因陳所作已貫瓶中，同喻再申豈非鄭重？」答：「因雖總說，宗義未明，指事明前，非為鄭重。」古師合云：「瓶有所作性，瓶是無常，聲有所作性，聲亦無常。」今陳那云：「諸所作者皆是無常」，顯略除繁，喻、宗雙貫，何勞長議？故改前師。古師結云：「是故得知聲是無常。」今陳那云：「譬如瓶等。」顯義已成，何勞重述？故於喻中雙陳因、宗二種明矣。至後當知。

Question: "Since stating 'being a product' as the reason already applies to a pot, is it not redundant to set it forth again in the homogeneous example?" Answer: "Although the reason states it in general terms, the meaning of the proposition is not yet clear; pointing to concrete facts to clarify what precedes is not redundant." The ancient masters combined them, saying: "A pot has the nature of being a product; a pot is impermanent. Sound has the nature of being a product; sound is also impermanent." Now Diṅnāga says, "Whatever is a product is impermanent," which expresses it concisely and eliminates prolixity, applying equally to both example and proposition; why labor over lengthy discussion? Therefore, he amended the earlier masters. The ancient masters concluded: "Therefore it is known that sound is impermanent." Now Diṅnāga says, "for example, a pot, etc.," showing that the meaning is already established; why labor to restate it? Therefore, setting forth both the reason and the proposition together in the example is clear. This should be understood later.