因明義斷 1.10

1.10

有人云：論云差別為性，言差別性故者非也。其義云何？答：此亦不然。三藏本譯云「差別性故」，後呂才與文軌法師改云「差別為性」。豈以昧識為誠言、靈哲為謾語？若是翻譯之輩，可許義正以改之。彼解疏尚破之，改論那宜遂許之？又言故者，結定之詞。顯此宗者，要依法與有法共相差別，違他順已方為宗故，故云「有法及法者皆須極成」。所以宗中有此故字，具顯所以。如本疏明。

Someone says: The treatise says "with difference as its nature" (差別為性); saying "because of its different nature" (差別性故) is incorrect. How is this meaning to be understood? Answer: This too is not so. The Tripiṭaka Master's original translation said "because of its different nature" (差別性故); later, Lü Cai and Dharma Master Wengui changed it to "with difference as its nature" (差別為性). How could one take confused understanding as true words and spiritual wisdom as reckless talk? If they were of the class of translators, it might be permissible to change it if the sense were correct. The commentary explaining it even refuted them; how could altering the treatise be casually permitted? Furthermore, the word "because" (故) is a word of conclusive determination. It shows that this pratijñā must rely upon the mutual differentiation of the dharma and the dharmin, contradicting the opponent and conforming with oneself, in order to constitute a pratijñā; therefore it says: "Both the dharmin and the dharma must be prasiddha." Thus there is this word "because" in the pratijñā, fully clarifying the reason, as made clear in the root commentary.