因明入正理論疏 3.35

3.35

問：「若爾，立聲為無常宗，聲體可聞，瓶有燒見，其瓶與聲應成異品。若許為異，不但違論，亦一切宗皆無同品。」答：「豈不已說，其聲之體非所諍故。聲上無常是所成立，瓶既同有，故是同品。彼說離實有體有性為宗有法，以有一實因所成立，同異既非離實有體之有性，故成於異品。」

Question: 'If so, when advancing the thesis that sound is impermanent, the entity of sound is audible while a pot is seen when fired; the pot and sound should become dissimilar instances. If one permits them to be dissimilar, not only does it contradict the treatises, but all theses would lack similar instances.' Answer: 'Has it not already been stated that the entity of sound is not the point in dispute? Impermanence upon sound is what is to be established; since a pot likewise possesses it, it is a similar instance. That opponent asserts that an existence-ness having an entity apart from substance is the subject of the thesis, which is established by the reason "possessing one substance"; since commonality-particularity is not an existence-ness having an entity apart from substance, it constitutes a dissimilar instance.'