因明入正理論疏 2.32

2.32

其第四句釋勤勇因，亦為不可。言不遍者，若以離類合，先言若非勤勇無間所發定是常住，電非勤發而非常住。非勤因寬，常住宗局，局宗不遍常住寬因，即應以非勤發成其常住。若爾，應成非本所說。若以合類離，先言諸無常者皆勤勇發，電等無常非勤所發。無常因寬，勤發宗狹，宗狹因寬，亦是不遍。若亦許爾，應成非本所諍之說。此勤勇因既同所作，應言又不遍，略故無又字。其非樂者，此不遍因，應別有成立不愛樂宗，謂若以離類合，言諸非勤發皆常住者，空非勤發可是常住，電非勤發如何皆常？此因既於異品中有，即成不定，便為成立電等常住不樂之宗。又若以合類離，言諸無常者皆是勤發，瓶等無常則是勤發，電等無常如何勤發？此勤發因亦於異品中有，還成不定。既以無常成立電等而是勤發，還非所樂。由此合、離二等相例，咸為不可，是故但應合離同異，如我所說。

The fourth line explains the hetu of arising from effort, which is likewise inadmissible. As for "non-pervasion": If one analogizes negative exclusion to application, stating first that whatever does not arise immediately from effort is definitely eternal, lightning does not arise from effort, yet is not eternal. The hetu of non-effort is broad, while the thesis of eternality is narrow; the narrow thesis does not pervade the broad hetu of eternality, so one would be establishing eternality by non-arising from effort. If so, it would establish what was not originally stated. If one analogizes application to negative exclusion, stating first that whatever is impermanent arises from effort, lightning and the like are impermanent but do not arise from effort. The hetu of impermanence is broad, while the thesis of arising from effort is narrow; when the thesis is narrow and the hetu is broad, this is also non-pervasion. If one also permits this, it would establish what was not originally in dispute. Since this hetu of arising from effort is identical to productness, it should say "also non-pervasive"; for brevity, the word "also" is omitted. As for "an undesired [thesis]": this non-pervasive hetu would separately establish an undesirable thesis. That is, if one analogizes negative exclusion to application, saying that all that do not arise from effort are eternal, space does not arise from effort and can be eternal, but how could lightning, which does not arise from effort, be eternal in all cases? Since this hetu exists in the dissimilar class, it becomes inconclusive (anaikāntika), thereby establishing the undesired thesis that lightning and the like are eternal. Furthermore, if one analogizes application to negative exclusion, saying that whatever is impermanent arises from effort, a jar and the like are impermanent and indeed arise from effort, but how could lightning and the like, which are impermanent, arise from effort? This hetu of arising from effort also exists in the dissimilar class, and likewise becomes inconclusive. Since one uses impermanence to establish that lightning and the like arise from effort, this is again not desired. Therefore, analogizing both application and negative exclusion to each other is entirely inadmissible; hence, application and negative exclusion, similarity and dissimilarity, should only be as I have stated.