因明入正理論疏 3.104

3.104

問：「諸所作者皆是無常，合宗、因不？有云：不合。以聲無常他不許故，但合宗外餘有所作及無常，猶此相屬，能顯聲上有所作故，無常必隨。」今謂不爾，立喻本欲成宗，合既不合於宗，立喻何關宗事？故云諸所作者即合聲上所作，皆是無常，即以無常合屬所作，不欲以瓶所作合聲所作，以瓶無常合聲無常。若不無常合屬所作，如何解同喻云說因宗所隨？若云聲無常他不許不合者，不爾。若彼許者，即立已成；以彼不許故，須合顯云：諸所作者皆是無常，猶如瓶等。又設難云：「異喻亦言諸皆，豈欲籠括宗、因耶？」答：「不例，異喻本欲離彼宗、因，顯無宗處因定不有，如何得合？返顯順成諸皆之言，定合聲上所作與彼無常，令屬著因。」

Question: "Does 'whatever is produced is impermanent' apply (co-ordinate) the thesis and the reason? Some say: It does not apply them, because sound's impermanence is not accepted by the other party; it only applies the other things outside the thesis that have being produced and impermanence, and because these connect to each other, it can reveal that since sound has being produced, impermanence necessarily follows." Now we say this is not so: establishing an example originally aims to establish the thesis; if application does not apply to the thesis, what does establishing the example have to do with the thesis? Therefore, saying 'whatever is produced' precisely applies to what is produced on sound, and 'all are impermanent' precisely connects impermanence to what is produced; it does not intend to apply what is produced in a pot to what is produced in sound, nor the impermanence of a pot to the impermanence of sound. If impermanence were not applied and connected to what is produced, how could one explain the similar example as 'stating what is followed by the thesis of the reason'? If one says that because sound's impermanence is not accepted by the other party it cannot be applied, this is not so. If that party accepted it, the establishment would already be accomplished; because that party does not accept it, one must apply and reveal it by saying: 'Whatever is produced is impermanent, just like a pot etc.' Furthermore, an objection is posed: "The dissimilar example also says 'whatever is … all …'; does it also intend to encompass the thesis and the reason?" Answer: "It is not analogous. The dissimilar example originally aims to separate from that thesis and reason, revealing that where the thesis is absent, the reason is definitely absent; how could it apply [them]? Revealing by contrast to accomplish in conformity, the words 'whatever … all …' definitely apply what is produced on sound and that impermanence, causing them to connect to the reason."