因明入正理論疏 2.18

2.18

Question: "Since stating 'being a product' as the reason already applies to a pot, is it not redundant to set it forth again in the homogeneous example?" Answer: "Although the reason states it in general terms, the meaning of the proposition is not yet clear; pointing to concrete facts to clarify what precedes is not redundant." The ancient masters combined them, saying: "A pot has the nature of being a product; a pot is impermanent. Sound has the nature of being a product; sound is also impermanent." Now Diṅnāga says, "Whatever is a product is impermanent," which expresses it concisely and eliminates prolixity, applying equally to both example and proposition; why labor over lengthy discussion? Therefore, he amended the earlier masters. The ancient masters concluded: "Therefore it is known that sound is impermanent." Now Diṅnāga says, "for example, a pot, etc.," showing that the meaning is already established; why labor to restate it? Therefore, setting forth both the reason and the proposition together in the example is clear. This should be understood later.