因明入正理論疏 3.45

3.45

問：「又如彼言：聲之無常，應非作聲無常有緣性，所作性故，如瓶等。應是法差別相違。」答：「亦不然。彼犯兩俱不成。無常有法兩俱不許有所作性，亦似破攝。如是應非緣息無常等，皆准此知。」

Question: 'Furthermore, as they say: "The impermanence of sound should not act as an object of cognitive apprehension of the impermanence of sound; because of being produced; like a pot and so forth"—should this be contradictory to the qualification of the predicate?' Answer: 'This too is not so. That commits the fault of being unestablished for both (ubhayāsiddha). Regarding the subject "impermanence," both parties do not accept that it possesses the property of being produced; this too is subsumed under pseudo-refutation. So too with "ought not to be an impermanence whose conditions have ceased," and so forth—all should be understood according to this.'