因明入正理論疏 3.32

3.32

述曰：此成違義，有二：初二句牒。彼先立因，遮有非實，謂有一實，有德、業因，如前所說能成有性，遮是實等，等德及業。後三句顯此因，亦能令彼有法自相相違。謂指於前如是此因，亦能成立遮彼有性而非有性，謂前宗言有性非實，有性是前有法自相。今立量云：所言有性應非有性，有一實故，有德、業故，如同異性。同異能有於一實等，同異非有性。有性能有於一實等，有性非有性。釋所由云：此因既能遮有性非實等，亦能遮有性非是大有性，兩俱決定故。

The Commentary says: This establishment of a contradictory meaning has two [parts]: the first two lines recap [the opponent's argument]. That [opponent] previously established a reason to negate that existence is substance, saying that it possesses one substance and possesses quality and action as its reason, which as said before can establish existence-ness and negate that it is substance or the like—'or the like' includes qualities and actions. The subsequent three lines show that this reason is also capable of making the own-character of that subject contradictory. That is, pointing to the previous [reason], such a reason as this can also establish the negation of that existence-ness such that it is not existence-ness. That is to say, the previous thesis stated, 'Existence-ness is not a substance'; existence-ness is the own-character of the preceding subject. Now, an inference is advanced, saying: 'The so-called existence-ness ought not to be existence-ness; because it possesses one substance, and because it possesses quality and action; like commonality-particularity.' Commonality-particularity can exist in one substance and so forth, yet commonality-particularity is not existence-ness. Existence-ness can exist in one substance and so forth, so existence-ness is not existence-ness. Explaining the reason, it says: since this reason can negate that existence-ness is substance and so forth, it can also negate that existence-ness is the Great Existence; because both are equally determined.