因明入正理論疏 3.71

3.71

問：「若言因無依故即因不成，故喻能立亦無所依者，即無無宗有因、喻等諸闕減句。若言無能別故說為無宗者，豈無所別不無宗耶？若言無所別即宗因無者，因有三相，彼但無初，後二相有，何不名因？若言有過故不名因，即十四因總名不成，皆有過故，何須別說？然准道理，言因之時唯取初相，有法無故，闕無初相，即是無因，以後二相說為喻故，故無所依。設有能別而無有法，亦其是過。」

Question: 'If one says that because the reason lacks a substratum the reason is therefore unestablished, so the example's means of proof also lacks a substratum, then there would be no defective propositions such as lacking a thesis while having a reason and an example. If one says that because of lacking the qualificand (viśeṣaṇa) it is spoken of as lacking a thesis, could lacking the qualificandum (viśeṣya) not also lack a thesis? If one says that lacking the qualificandum means thesis and reason are absent: the reason has three characteristics; that case merely lacks the first, while the latter two characteristics are present, so why not call it a reason? If one says it is not called a reason because it is fallacious, then the fourteen reasons would collectively be called unestablished, because all are fallacious, so why distinguish them? However, according to logic, when speaking of the reason one takes only the first characteristic; because the subject is absent, lacking the first characteristic is precisely having no reason, since the latter two characteristics are spoken of as the examples; therefore, it has no substratum. Even if there is a qualificand but no subject, it is also fallacious.'