因明入正理論疏 3.143

3.143

問：「異喻但遮，異無非過。遮有立異，無豈非過？如立虛空定應非有，以非作故，如龜毛等。諸常有者皆必非作，如空花等。豈非無體俱不遣耶？」答：「前望一宗，故同開二；此約別立，故合為一。立有異有，即有不遣，若無必遣；立無異無，即無不遣，異有必遣，故不開二。此中亦有兩俱不遣、隨一、猶預及無所依，亦隨所應，有自、他、共，分、全等過，如理思准。」

Question: 'A heterogeneous example is merely exclusive, so the absence of a heterogeneous [entity] is not a fallacy. But where an exclusion of existence establishes the heterogeneous, how could nonexistence not be a fallacy? For example, establishing: "Space must certainly be non-existent, because it is unproduced, like the hair of a tortoise and so forth. Whatever is eternal and existent must be non-unproduced, like a sky-flower and so forth." Is this not non-exclusion of both due to lack of real entity?'
Answer: 'Previously, looking from the perspective of a single tradition, the homogeneous opened into two; here, treating separate formulations, they are combined into one. When establishing existence, the heterogeneous is existence, so there is non-exclusion of existence, whereas if nonexistent it must be excluded; when establishing nonexistence, the heterogeneous is nonexistence, so there is non-exclusion of nonexistence, whereas if existent it must be excluded. Hence they are not opened into two. Here too there are non-exclusion for both, for one party, doubtful, and lack of support; and according to what is applicable, there are fallacies of one's own, the other's, both, partial, total, and so forth, which should be deduced in accordance with reason.'