因明入正理論疏 2.44

2.44

述曰：第三文也。牒前同喻，後指法云：「謂若有所作因，見有無常宗，猶如瓶等。」是無常宗隨因所作同品之言。雖所作因舉聲上有以顯無常，無常猶未隨所作因。所作因通聲、瓶兩處名因同品；今舉瓶上所作故無常，顯聲無常亦隨因同品，義決定故。又同品者是宗同品，昔雖舉因，宗猶未隨自瓶同品無常義定；今顯有因，宗法必有，如瓶等故，其所立聲定隨同品無常義立。

The commentary says: This is the third text. Taking up the previous affirmative example, it then points out the rule, saying: 'That is to say, wherever there is the reason of being produced, one sees the thesis of impermanence, just like a pot and the like'—this is the statement of the thesis of impermanence conforming to the similar class through the reason of being produced. Although the reason of being produced is adduced as existing on sound to reveal impermanence, impermanence has not yet conformed to the reason of being produced. The reason of being produced applies to both sound and pot, and is called the sapakṣa of the reason; now adducing that on a pot [it is] impermanent because of being produced reveals that the impermanence of sound also conforms to the sapakṣa of the reason, because the meaning is determinate. Furthermore, 'similar class' refers to the sapakṣa of the thesis: formerly, although the reason was adduced, the thesis was not yet determined to conform to the meaning of impermanence in its own sapakṣa, the pot; now showing that when the reason is present, the property of the thesis is necessarily present, as in a pot and the like, the sound to be established is definitely established conforming to the impermanence of the similar class.