因明義斷 1.25

1.25

有人釋云：但遮外道小乘，及天親等立五支等，以為能立說唯三分。乃至云：非唯因喻。引《對法》云「釋宗因喻訖。次釋合云：謂由三分成立如前所成義已。」故知三分是宗因喻以為證者。其義云何？答：此亦不然。《對法》若云唯此三分，可引彼證。彼云由三，更舉合結等，即知能立不唯前三，不說唯故。前三正能合結，傍顯俱能立故。故彼論解合云「遂引彼義，令就此法正說道理。」解結云「結者，謂到究竟趣。所有正說由此道理極善成就，故是此事決定無異。」結會究竟是名結，既由結支決定究竟，明唯前三能立不足。又復標云能立有八，今者言三，違彼說故。若云合結助，非正立故，唯前三者。此亦不然。喻亦助因，應唯二分。又無唯字，故知引非。若爾，無著等豈不解因明，立八為能立，今陳那並遮。若爾，天親豈不解因明，今陳那設遮。又豈天親，不見《瑜伽》、《對法論》等立五為能立。五八既不說相違，略三何要同古？故知作者意別，各不相違，親疎合離取捨異故。

Someone explains, saying: “It is only to refute the non-Buddhists and Hīnayāna, as well as Vasubandhu and others who set up five members and the like, that it is stated that sādhana consists of only three members; up to saying that it does not consist solely of reason and example.” He quotes the Abhidharmasamuccaya, saying: “‘The explanation of pratijñā, reason, and example is finished. Next, the application is explained: that is, by means of the three members, having established the meaning previously established as before…’ From this we know that the three members are pratijñā, reason, and example as proof.” How is its meaning to be taken? Answer: This is also not so. If the Abhidharmasamuccaya had said “only these three members,” one could quote it as proof. But it says “by means of three,” and further presents application, conclusion, and so forth; hence one knows that sādhana is not merely the former three, because it does not say “only.” The former three directly perform application and conclusion, and implicitly show that both are sādhana. Therefore, that treatise, explaining application, says: “Then adducing that meaning, one brings it to this dharma to state the principle correctly.” Explaining conclusion, it says: “Conclusion means arriving at the ultimate limit. Whatever is correctly stated is thoroughly accomplished by this principle, and therefore this matter is definitely not otherwise.” Drawing together to the ultimate is termed conclusion; since it is definitively concluded by means of the conclusion member, it is clear that only the former three as sādhana would be insufficient. Furthermore, it initially states that sādhana has eight [members]; now saying three contradicts that statement. If you say that application and conclusion assist and are not the primary establishment, and therefore there are only the former three, this is also not so. The example also assists the reason, so there would be only two members. Moreover, because there is no word “only,” we know that quoting it is erroneous. If that were so, would Asaṅga and the others not understand hetuvidyā, having established eight as sādhana, which Dignāga now refutes together? If that were so, would Vasubandhu not understand hetuvidyā, whom Dignāga now hypothetically refutes? And would Vasubandhu not have seen treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi and Abhidharmasamuccaya that establish five as sādhana? Since five and eight are not said to contradict each other, why must the abridgment to three agree with the ancient? Therefore, we know that the intentions of the authors differed and do not contradict each other, because of differences in proximity and distance, combination and separation, and inclusion and exclusion.