因明義斷 1.21

1.21

有人云：同有因法、宗法不同有者，雖名同法，而非喻也。故下文云「此因以樂以空為同法故，亦是不定。」即判云：恐未盡理。自決云：若望其宗名為同品，望因名同法。其義云何？答：此不異前，何勞更釋。又自云：夫有能立因法，所立宗法必隨，故於喻中但說因法，宗法自隨逐也。此言有濫，不簡別故。若言有因宗定隨者，云何喻中有所立不定過，但許有能立。又復誰說於同喻中但說因法，宗法自隨？准《理門論》，舉喻之時要具說因宗，不單說因故。准理正因，因有之處，宗必定隨；然舉喻時必須俱說，不爾無合。異喻例此。又云：若望因名品、名法，具得二名；望宗亦名品名法，此亦先陳，何煩復說？先德云：但同異於有法之上所作義者，名之為法。又此所作，非總所立，不得名品、名之為法。宗總所立，遂與品名，能所異故。又因宗二，同異名法、別同異名品，此同異二，故名為法。次下因同異，及上宗同異，並別同異，故皆名品。

Someone says: 'Where the dharma of the reason is commonly present but the dharma of the thesis is not commonly present, although it is called sādharmya, it is not an example. Therefore, the lower text says: "Because this reason takes pleasure and space as sādharmya, it is also indeterminate."' He then determines: 'It is to be feared that this does not exhaust the principle.' He resolves it himself, saying: 'Relative to the thesis, it is called sapakṣa; relative to the reason, it is called sādharmya.' What is the truth of this matter? Answer: This does not differ from the former; why trouble to explain it again? Furthermore, he says himself: 'Wherever the sādhana-dharma of the reason exists, the sadhya-dharma of the thesis must follow; therefore, in the example one only states the dharma of the reason, and the dharma of the thesis naturally follows.' These words are imprecise, because they fail to make distinctions. If one says that where there is the reason, the thesis definitely follows, why in an example is there the fallacy of an indeterminate sadhya where only the sādhana is accepted? Furthermore, who said that in a similar example one only states the dharma of the reason, and the dharma of the thesis naturally follows? According to the *Nyāyamukha*, when presenting an example one must state both the reason and the thesis completely, and not state the reason alone. According to principle, in a correct reason, wherever the reason exists, the thesis must definitely follow; however, when presenting an example one must state both, otherwise there is no upanaya. The dissimilar example is analogous to this. He also says: 'Relative to the reason it is called a pakṣa and called a dharma, possessing both names; relative to the thesis it is also called a pakṣa and called a dharma.' This was also set forth previously; why bother to repeat it? Earlier masters said: 'Only the meanings produced on the dharmin through similarity or dissimilarity are called dharma. Furthermore, because what is produced here is not the sadhya as a whole, it cannot be called pakṣa, but is called dharma. The thesis is the sadhya as a whole, and so it is given the name pakṣa, because the sādhana and sadhya differ.' Furthermore, the reason and thesis are two; similarity and dissimilarity are called dharma, and specific similarity and dissimilarity are called pakṣa; because these are similarity and dissimilarity, they are called dharma. Just below, the similarity and dissimilarity of the reason, and above, the similarity and dissimilarity of the thesis, are both specific similarities and dissimilarities, and therefore are all called pakṣa.