因明入正理論疏 3.58

3.58

因名能立，宗法名所立，同喻之法必須具此二。因貫宗、喻，喻必有能立令宗義方成，喻必有所立令因義方顯。今偏或雙於喻非有，故有初三。喻以顯宗，令義見其邊極，不相連合，所立宗義不明，照智不生，故有第四。初標能以所逐，有因宗必定隨逐。初宗以後因，乃有宗以因其逐，返覆能所令心顛倒，共許不成，他智翻生，故有第五。依增勝過但立此五，故無無結及倒結等。以似翻真，故亦無合結。

The reason (hetu) is called the means of proof (sādhana), and the property of the thesis (sādhya-dharma) is called the probandum (sādhya); the property of a similar example must possess both of these. The reason runs through the thesis and the example; the example must have the means of proof so that the meaning of the thesis is then established, and the example must have the probandum so that the meaning of the reason is then made manifest. Here, when either one or both are absent from the example, the first three [fallacies] therefore arise. The example is used to make the thesis manifest, causing its meaning to be seen in its ultimate scope; if they are not conjoined, the meaning of the probandum thesis is not clear and illuminating cognition does not arise, hence the fourth [fallacy] arises. First stating the means of proof as followed by the probandum means that where there is the reason, the thesis necessarily follows. If one puts the thesis first and the reason after, then the thesis has the reason following it; reversing the means of proof and probandum confuses the mind, mutual acceptance is not achieved, and an inverted cognition arises in the other party, hence the fifth [fallacy] arises. These five are established solely on the basis of the predominant fallacies; therefore, there is no absence of conclusion, inverted conclusion, and so forth. Because the semblance reverses the genuine, there is likewise no [correct] conjunction or conclusion.