因明入正理論疏 2.33

2.33

彼又問言：「為要具二譬喻言詞方成能立？為如其因，但隨說一？」此問二喻，為要具說二方成能立，成所立宗？為如所作、勤勇二因，但隨說一即成能立，成所立宗？彼自答言：「若就正理，應具說二，由是具足，顯示所立不離其因，以具顯示同品定有、異品遍無，能正對治相違、不定。」由具顯二，故能顯示宗不相離因，亦顯宗因同品定有、異品遍無。二喻既足，故能正除相違、不定。相違、不定二相過故，相違之因同無異有，不定之因二有二無，故說二喻具以除二過。

He further asked: "Must one be equipped with the expressions of both examples to constitute a proof? Or, like the hetu, is it that whichever one is stated suffices?" This asks regarding the two examples: must one state both fully to constitute a proof and establish the thesis to be established? Or, like the two hetus of being produced and arising from effort, does stating whichever one of them suffice to constitute a proof and establish the thesis to be established? He answers himself: "According to correct logic, one should state both fully; because by being complete, they show that what is to be established is not separated from its hetu, and because by fully showing that it definitely exists in the similar class and is completely absent in the dissimilar class, they can properly counteract the contradictory (viruddha) and the inconclusive (anaikāntika)." Because both are fully shown, they can show that the thesis is inseparable from the hetu, and also show that the hetu definitely exists in the similar class and is completely absent in the dissimilar class. Since both examples are complete, they can properly eliminate the contradictory and the inconclusive. The contradictory and the inconclusive are the faults of the [second and third] characteristics: the contradictory hetu is absent from the similar and present in the dissimilar, while the inconclusive hetu is present in both or absent in both; therefore, stating both examples completely eliminates both faults.