因明義斷 1.20

1.20

有人云：同品定有性、異品遍無性各有四句，然但置唯言，為異舊人，以雖簡過，有不盡故。其義云何？答：此亦不然。今雖置唯，還同不盡，不能簡得不共不定。又若唯言簡異品有，亦應唯言但在同品亦遮遍宗，以置唯同品有言故。故知各為顯其自相。但同品定有，即第二相。有過生者，是餘相過故。異品遍無，應知亦是但明第三相。雖異遍無，有過起者自是餘相。若云既簡過不盡，何須四句？今作亦同，何乃偏責？故知各別簡明自相，後取此相相對而辨，方顯正因。煩不能具。於餘異遍無中諸多解釋皆應更思，悉未盡理。故此簡者，方窮正理之妙門、得作者之深意，故作四句，非為徒設。

Someone says: 'Definite presence in the sapakṣa and complete absence from the vipakṣa each have four clauses; however, the word "only" is inserted merely to differ from ancient scholars, because although it excludes fallacies, it does not do so completely.' What is the truth of this matter? Answer: This also is not so. Even with the insertion of "only" now, it is still equally incomplete, being unable to exclude the uncommon indeterminate [reason]. Furthermore, if the word "only" excludes presence in the vipakṣa, the word "only" being merely in the sapakṣa should also preclude pervading the thesis, because of the expression 'only present in the sapakṣa'. Hence we know that each serves to manifest its own characteristic. As long as there is definite presence in the sapakṣa, that is the second mark. If a fallacy arises, it is a fallacy of the other marks. Complete absence from the vipakṣa should be known likewise as only clarifying the third mark. Even if there is complete absence from the vipakṣa, if a fallacy arises, it naturally belongs to the other marks. If one says: since it does not completely exclude fallacies, why are four clauses needed? The present formulation is also the same; why place the blame on one side alone? Therefore, we know that each separately excludes and clarifies its own characteristic, and only later, taking these characteristics to distinguish them relative to each other, is the correct reason made manifest. It would be tiresome to detail this completely. The numerous other explanations of complete absence from the vipakṣa should all be reconsidered; none exhausts the principle. Therefore, this exclusion alone penetrates the marvelous gate of the correct principle and attains the author's profound intent; hence the four clauses are formulated, not set forth in vain.