因明入正理論疏 3.27

3.27

問：「何故不言有於無實、二實、多實？」答：「若言有於二實、多實，云何得以非實為宗？其因便有不定之失。為如同異有二多實，故彼有性非實，為如子微等有二、多實，故彼有性是實。由此不言有二、多實，若言有無實者，和合句義亦名無實。若有彼無實，犯兩俱不成，實等能有上無有無實故。其喻亦犯能立不成，因亦不遍，乍似唯能有於實句之無實故，亦欲顯九實一一皆有，故云一實，能有一一實故。」

Question: 'Why does he not say "possessing no substance, two substances, or many substances"?' Answer: 'If he said "possessing two substances or many substances", how could he take "not substance" as the thesis? The reason would then incur the fault of being inconclusive (anaikāntika): Is it that, just as commonality-particularity possesses two or many substances, therefore that existence is not a substance; or is it that, just as daughter atoms and so forth possess two or many substances, therefore that existence is a substance? For this reason, he does not say "two substances or many substances". If he said "possessing no substance", the category of inherence is also called "having no substance". If it possessed that absence of substance, it would commit the fault of being unestablished for both parties (ubhayāsiddha), because upon the possessing entity of substance and so forth there is no possessing of "having no substance". Its example would also commit the fault of the probans being unestablished (sādhanāsiddha), and the reason would also not be pervasive, appearing at first glance as if it could only possess the "having no substance" of the category of substance. He also wishes to show that each of the nine substances is possessed individually; therefore he says "one substance", because it can possess each individual substance.'