因明入正理論疏 3.97

3.97

有云：「聲宗上遮、表，虛空喻上遮，別既兩俱成，總非能立闕。」答：「若聲論師作此立者，即是所立不成過者，此亦不然。虛空之上，但有遮無常，無所表常，即所立不成。既但遮礙，無所表無礙，何非能立闕？」

Someone says: "Sound on the thesis [has both] exclusion and affirmation, while empty space on the example [has only] exclusion; since the distinctions are established for both [parties], the general [probans] is not a deficiency of the proof (sādhana)." Answer: "If a Śabda philosopher makes this formulation, then it would be the fault of 'what is to be proved is unestablished' (sādhyāsiddha), but this is also incorrect. On empty space, there is only the exclusion of impermanence, without the permanence that is affirmed, which is 'what is to be proved is unestablished.' Since it only excludes obstruction and lacks the unobstructedness that is affirmed, why is it not a deficiency of the proof?"