因明入正理論疏 3.114

3.114

述曰：正顯倒合，謂正應以所作證無常，今翻無常證所作，故是喻過，即成非所立，有違自宗及相符等，如正喻中已廣分別。前之三過皆有自、他、共，分、全等，此後二過但有共、全，無所餘也。或無分、全，可分他、自、共，以隨立量有自等三故。總計似同，初三各四，成其十二，兼後二過總有十四。分自、他、共，有四十二，於中細分全分、一分，復以似因問似喻過，數乃無量，恐繁且止。

The Commentary states: This explicitly shows the inverted application (viparīta-upanaya), meaning that one properly ought to establish impermanence by means of producedness, yet here one inverts it to establish producedness by means of impermanence. Therefore, it is a fallacy of the example (dṛṣṭāntābhāsa), resulting in establishing what is not the probandum (asādhya), contradicting one's own thesis, proving what is already accepted, and so forth, as has already been analyzed in detail under the correct example. The previous three fallacies all have [the distinctions of] one's own, the other's, both, partial, and total, whereas these latter two fallacies have only both and total, and none of the rest. Or, they do not have partial and total, but can be divided into the other's, one's own, and both, because they vary according to the formulation of the argument into these three. In total reckoning of the pseudo-homogeneous [examples], each of the first three has four, making twelve, which together with the latter two fallacies makes fourteen in total. Dividing these into one's own, the other's, and both gives forty-two; if one further subdivides them into total and partial, and again combines pseudo-reasons to query the pseudo-examples, the number would be limitless, so fearing verbosity, we pause for now.