因明入正理論疏 2.9

2.9

Question: 'If showing the reason's similar class means that the property of the thesis necessarily follows, why is it necessary to additionally say "definitely possess [the property]"? If one says "definitely possess [the property]", the reason is necessarily present in the thesis, so why is it necessary to additionally say "showing the reason's similar class"?' Answer: 'If one only says the reason's similar class without stating that it definitely possesses [the property], this falls under the presence in dissimilar classes among the nine clauses—excluding the second, fifth, and eighth, the remaining six clauses belong here—and it would be subsumed under the two fallacies of contradictory and inconclusive; the dissimilar example would also commit an error, failing to eliminate the proving [property]. If one says that it definitely possesses [the property] without stating the reason's similar class, this corresponds to absence in the similar class among the nine clauses—namely the fourth, fifth, and sixth—and it would also be subsumed under the two fallacies of contradictory and inconclusive; the similar example would also commit an error, rendering the prover unestablished. If it is neither the reason's similar class nor definitely possesses [the property], this corresponds to absence in the dissimilar class among the nine clauses—namely the second, fifth, and eighth—subsumed under the two kinds: valid reason and inconclusive; the similar example would also commit the error of being unestablished in both. If one shows the reason's similar class and it also definitely possesses [the property], this corresponds to the presence in the similar class among the nine clauses—excluding the fourth, fifth, and sixth, the remaining six clauses belong here—subsumed under valid reason and inconclusive: where there is no fault in the dissimilar class, it is subsumed under valid reason; where there is a fault in the dissimilar class, it is subsumed under inconclusive, and the dissimilar example may have partial or total non-elimination of the prover. These various fallacies committed by the similar and dissimilar examples—whether in regard to oneself or the other, or totally or partially—should all be contemplated as appropriate. In order to ward off the errors stated in the first three clauses and a minor portion of the fourth clause, and to show that a minor portion of the fourth clause is correct, one must state both: showing the reason's similar class and definitely possessing [the property].'