因明入正理論疏 2.27

2.27

又難古言：「世間但顯宗、因異品，同處有性，為異法喻，非宗無處，因不有性，故定無能。」初四句牒，後三句非。此說外道名為世間，但顯宗、因常及非所作異品同在虛空上，故說此虛空為異喻體。此牒彼宗。而申難言：「非宗無處，因不有性，故定無能。」異品不言謂若是常宗無之處，見非所作，因不有性，以離宗、因，返顯有因，宗必定有。故古異品決定無能，由此但應如我所說。

He further objected to the ancients, saying: "The worldly merely show the coexistence of the dissimilar classes of the thesis and the hetu in the same locus as the example of dissimilar quality, but not the nonexistence of the hetu where the thesis is absent; therefore, it definitely lacks capability." The first four lines formulate the opponent's view; the latter three lines refute it. "The worldly" here refers to the non-Buddhists, who merely show that the dissimilar classes of the thesis and the hetu—namely, eternal and non-produced—coexist upon empty space, and therefore speak of this empty space as the substance of the dissimilar example. This formulates their doctrine. Then he presents the objection, saying: "It is not the nonexistence of the hetu where the thesis is absent; therefore, it definitely lacks capability." In the dissimilar class, they do not say: "Where the thesis is absent, such that if something is eternal, it is seen to be non-produced, which is the nonexistence of the hetu," so as to inversely show through negative exclusion of thesis and hetu that wherever the hetu is present, the thesis must definitely be present. Therefore, the dissimilar class of the ancients is definitely devoid of capability; on this basis, one should only follow what I have stated.