因明入正理論疏 2.9

2.9

問：「顯因同品，宗法必隨，何須復言決定有性？言決定有性，因必在宗，何須復說顯因同品？」答：「唯言因同品，不說定有性，即九句中諸異品有，除二、五、八，餘六句是，相違、不定亦二過攝，異喻亦犯，能立不遣。若言定有性，不說因同品，亦即是九句中同品非有，四、五、六是，相違、不定亦二過攝，同喻亦犯，能立不成。若非因同品，亦非定有性，即九句中異品非有，二、五、八是，正因、不定二種所攝，同喻亦犯，俱不成過。若顯因同品，亦決定有性，即九句中同品亦有句，除四、五、六，餘六句是，正因、不定二種所攝，異品無過正因所攝，異品有過不定所攝，異喻或有一分、全分，能立不遣。此同、異喻所犯諸過，或自或他、或全或一分，隨其所應皆應思惟。為遮前三句及第四少分所說過失，顯第四句少分為正，必須雙言顯因同品、決定有性。」

Question: 'If showing the reason's similar class means that the property of the thesis necessarily follows, why is it necessary to additionally say "definitely possess [the property]"? If one says "definitely possess [the property]", the reason is necessarily present in the thesis, so why is it necessary to additionally say "showing the reason's similar class"?' Answer: 'If one only says the reason's similar class without stating that it definitely possesses [the property], this falls under the presence in dissimilar classes among the nine clauses—excluding the second, fifth, and eighth, the remaining six clauses belong here—and it would be subsumed under the two fallacies of contradictory and inconclusive; the dissimilar example would also commit an error, failing to eliminate the proving [property]. If one says that it definitely possesses [the property] without stating the reason's similar class, this corresponds to absence in the similar class among the nine clauses—namely the fourth, fifth, and sixth—and it would also be subsumed under the two fallacies of contradictory and inconclusive; the similar example would also commit an error, rendering the prover unestablished. If it is neither the reason's similar class nor definitely possesses [the property], this corresponds to absence in the dissimilar class among the nine clauses—namely the second, fifth, and eighth—subsumed under the two kinds: valid reason and inconclusive; the similar example would also commit the error of being unestablished in both. If one shows the reason's similar class and it also definitely possesses [the property], this corresponds to the presence in the similar class among the nine clauses—excluding the fourth, fifth, and sixth, the remaining six clauses belong here—subsumed under valid reason and inconclusive: where there is no fault in the dissimilar class, it is subsumed under valid reason; where there is a fault in the dissimilar class, it is subsumed under inconclusive, and the dissimilar example may have partial or total non-elimination of the prover. These various fallacies committed by the similar and dissimilar examples—whether in regard to oneself or the other, or totally or partially—should all be contemplated as appropriate. In order to ward off the errors stated in the first three clauses and a minor portion of the fourth clause, and to show that a minor portion of the fourth clause is correct, one must state both: showing the reason's similar class and definitely possessing [the property].'