因明入正理論疏 3.87

3.87

「一云：依喻所依，諸論說但舉瓶、空等法為喻依故。此解為正。若據後解，所依不成。彼聲論師對大乘立，舉極微為喻，此闕所依。所依既無，所立亦闕，以大乘宗不立微故。細准而言，有自、他、共，全分、一分，有體、無體，思之可悉，恐繁不述。」

"One explanation says: it is based on the substratum of the example (dṛṣṭāntāśraya), because the treatises state that merely adducing phenomena such as a pot or empty space serves as the substratum of the example. This explanation is correct. If one relies on the latter explanation, it would be [the fault of] 'the substratum is unestablished' (āśrayāsiddha). When that Śabda philosopher establishes [his thesis] against Mahāyāna and adduces atoms as an example, this lacks a substratum. Since the substratum does not exist, the [property] to be proved is also lacking, because the Mahāyāna school does not posit atoms. If one analyzes it precisely according to this standard, there are [divisions into] self, other, and both; whole and partial; with real entity and without real entity. One can understand this upon reflection, so for fear of prolixity it is not set forth."