因明入正理論疏 3.42

3.42

述曰：此成違義，有二：初三句顯此因亦能令彼有法差別而作相違，後二句釋所由。作非有緣性者，作非彼意許大有句義有緣之性。謂即此因，亦能成立與彼所立意許別義作有緣性差別相違，而作非大有有緣之性。同異有一實，而作非大有有緣性；有性有一實，應作非大有有緣性。不遮作有緣性，但遮作大有有緣性。故成意許別義相違。不爾，違宗有性，可作有緣性故。文言雖略，義覈定然。釋所由云：「如遮實等，俱決定故。」勝論此因既成有性，遮非實等，而作有緣性；此因亦遮有性非作有性有緣性。此如彼遮，兩皆決定，故成違彼差別之因。此宗自相、差別不定，如前已說。今此略以言陳為自相，意許為差別，故無妨難。

The Commentary says: This establishment of a contradictory meaning has two [parts]: the first three lines show that this reason is also capable of creating a contradiction against the qualification of that subject; the latter two lines explain the reason. "Acting as not the object of cognitive apprehension" means acting as not the object of cognitive apprehension of their intended category of the Great Existence. That is to say, this very reason can also establish the contradictory to the qualification intended by what they established—"acting as an object of cognitive apprehension"—by acting as not the object of cognitive apprehension of the Great Existence. Commonality-particularity possesses one substance, yet acts as not the object of cognitive apprehension of the Great Existence; existence-ness possesses one substance, so it ought to act as not the object of cognitive apprehension of the Great Existence. It does not negate acting as an object of cognitive apprehension in general, but only negates acting as the object of cognitive apprehension of the Great Existence. Therefore it contradicts the intended qualification. Otherwise, it would contradict the thesis that existence-ness can act as an object of cognitive apprehension. Although the phrasing is brief, an examination of the meaning confirms this. Explaining the reason, it says: "Because, just as with negating substance and so forth, both are equally determined." Since this reason of the Vaiśeṣikas establishes existence-ness, negating that it is substance and so forth while acting as an object of cognitive apprehension; this reason also negates that existence-ness acts as an object of cognitive apprehension of existence-ness. Just as with their negation, both are equally determined; therefore it constitutes a reason contradictory to their qualification. In this school, own-character and qualification are not fixed, as was already explained before. Here, we briefly take the explicit utterance as the own-character and what is intended as the qualification, so there is no flaw or objection.