因明入正理論疏 3.151

3.151

述曰：示法。宗、因同喻皆悉同前。異喻應言：諸無常者見彼質礙，即顯宗無，因定非有，返顯正因，除其不定及相違濫，返顯有因，宗必隨逐。此則顯彼宗、因。今既倒云：諸有質礙皆是無常。自以礙因成非常宗，不簡因濫，返顯於常。此有二過，如正異辯。亦可有三，自、他及共。無一分過。總計似異中亦四十二，如同喻說。餘細分別，亦准上知。

The Commentary states: Demonstrating the method. The thesis, reason, and homogeneous example are all identical to the above. The heterogeneous example should say: 'Whatever is impermanent is seen to possess corporeal obstruction,' which shows that where the thesis is absent, the reason is definitively absent, inversely revealing the correct reason, eliminating the confusions of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika) and contradiction (viruddha), and inversely revealing that where the reason exists, the thesis must accompany it. This demonstrates that thesis and reason. Now, having inverted it to say, 'Whatever possesses corporeal obstruction is impermanent,' one uses the reason of obstruction itself to establish the non-eternal thesis, failing to exclude confusion in the reason and inversely demonstrate permanence. This has two fallacies, as analyzed under the correct heterogeneous example. There can also be three: one's own, the other's, and both. There is no partial fallacy. In total reckoning, among pseudo-heterogeneous examples there are also forty-two, just as explained for homogeneous examples. The remaining detailed distinctions are also to be understood by analogy with the above.