因明入正理論疏 2.15

2.15

The ancient master asked again: "Why is it devoid of function?" Diṅnāga objected: "Because in a homogeneous example, the property of the subject and the probandum are not necessarily analogous; and since this would again have to be established by further examples, it would lead to an infinite regress." This explains why the reason and example [as maintained by the ancient master] are devoid of function. Since you do not state that whatever is a product is impermanent, that homogeneous example does not necessarily assimilate the property of the subject [functioning as] the reason with the probandum, impermanence, but merely says, "like a pot." If someone were to ask, "How is a pot impermanent?" you would reply again, "like a lamp." Proceeding successively in this way would lead to an infinite regress; this is the meaning of being devoid of function. If, according to our [formulation], the example states: "Whatever is a product is impermanent, like a pot, etc.," since it assimilates the property of the subject with the probandum and universally covers everything—pots, lamps, and so on—there is no need for further questioning; hence there is no infinite regress, and it is endowed with function. Furthermore, [Diṅnāga] objected to him: "Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that all characteristics are possessed [in common]." If the entity of the pot alone were the homogeneous example, then since burning, visibility, and so forth are not all analogous, this would constitute a fault. If, as I state, one only takes being a product, impermanence, and the like within that locus of the example as analogous, then there is no such fault. Furthermore, he objected: "If the property of the subject alone were the nature of the reason, then that which is inconclusive would also constitute a reason." This objection means: if being the property of the subject alone—[that is, being] a product—constituted the nature of the reason, while presence in the homogeneous and absence in the heterogeneous were merely the example and not the reason, then since the pot and space as examples would not be the reason, an inconclusive reason would also constitute a [valid] reason, because it would possess only presence in the subject and lack the latter two characteristics.