因明入正理論疏 3.27

3.27

Question: 'Why does he not say "possessing no substance, two substances, or many substances"?' Answer: 'If he said "possessing two substances or many substances", how could he take "not substance" as the thesis? The reason would then incur the fault of being inconclusive (anaikāntika): Is it that, just as commonality-particularity possesses two or many substances, therefore that existence is not a substance; or is it that, just as daughter atoms and so forth possess two or many substances, therefore that existence is a substance? For this reason, he does not say "two substances or many substances". If he said "possessing no substance", the category of inherence is also called "having no substance". If it possessed that absence of substance, it would commit the fault of being unestablished for both parties (ubhayāsiddha), because upon the possessing entity of substance and so forth there is no possessing of "having no substance". Its example would also commit the fault of the probans being unestablished (sādhanāsiddha), and the reason would also not be pervasive, appearing at first glance as if it could only possess the "having no substance" of the category of substance. He also wishes to show that each of the nine substances is possessed individually; therefore he says "one substance", because it can possess each individual substance.'