因明入正理論疏 2.33

2.33

He further asked: "Must one be equipped with the expressions of both examples to constitute a proof? Or, like the hetu, is it that whichever one is stated suffices?" This asks regarding the two examples: must one state both fully to constitute a proof and establish the thesis to be established? Or, like the two hetus of being produced and arising from effort, does stating whichever one of them suffice to constitute a proof and establish the thesis to be established? He answers himself: "According to correct logic, one should state both fully; because by being complete, they show that what is to be established is not separated from its hetu, and because by fully showing that it definitely exists in the similar class and is completely absent in the dissimilar class, they can properly counteract the contradictory (viruddha) and the inconclusive (anaikāntika)." Because both are fully shown, they can show that the thesis is inseparable from the hetu, and also show that the hetu definitely exists in the similar class and is completely absent in the dissimilar class. Since both examples are complete, they can properly eliminate the contradictory and the inconclusive. The contradictory and the inconclusive are the faults of the [second and third] characteristics: the contradictory hetu is absent from the similar and present in the dissimilar, while the inconclusive hetu is present in both or absent in both; therefore, stating both examples completely eliminates both faults.