因明義斷 1.24

1.24

有人解唯此三分說名能立，云：古解言因一喻二以為三分。即設難云：若依《掌珍論》，闕異喻亦成能立，何得言唯三分耶？其義云何？答：此難不然。清辨勝義一切皆空，空為同品。雖無於有，亦得云無宗之處因不有性，異喻得成。以異止濫，濫除即異喻。故《理門》云「後唯止濫，由合及離，比度義故。」由是，雖對不立實有大虛空等，而得顯示無有宗處無因義成。正解二喻，具足宗因，若非異喻，此言徒設。

Someone interprets “only these three members are stated as sādhana,” saying: Ancient explanations say that one reason and two examples constitute the three members. Then he raises an objection, saying: “If, according to the Karatalaratna, even with the dissimilar example lacking it still constitutes a sādhana, how can one say there are only three members?” How is its meaning to be taken? Answer: This objection is not so. In Bhavya’s ultimate truth, everything is empty, and emptiness is the sapakṣa. Although there is no existent, one can still say: “where the pratijñā is absent, there is the nature of the non-existence of the reason,” and the dissimilar example is established. Because the dissimilar halts confusion, when confusion is removed, that is the dissimilar example. Therefore, the Nyāyamukha says: “The latter is only to halt confusion, because the meaning is inferred by application and exclusion.” Due to this, even though one does not establish a genuinely existent great space and so forth against [the opponent], one can show that the meaning of having no reason where there is no pratijñā is established. Properly explained, the two examples are complete with pratijñā and reason; if it were not a dissimilar example, these words would have been set forth in vain.