因明義斷 1.28

1.28

有人自問答云：《瑜伽》、《對法》皆說八為能立，此但為三，豈成相順？答：因明即《瑜伽》十支之一支，豈得違反本經自為鉾楯等。其義云何？答：此亦不然。如實亦《瑜伽》一支，何得許乖本論。若云不乖彼說合結，陳那何故遮却？又復合結名言不殊，那知不遮《對法》中八？由據增勝說唯三，遮意解不同，釋亦少別。如《瑜伽論》八為能成，尚自料簡真唯有三，餘能立之能立名為能立，非實說八俱為能立。末代解釋取捨尚然，於古聖賢何苦不許？

Someone raised their own question and answer, saying: 'Both the Yogācārabhūmi and the Abhidharmasamuccaya state that the sādhana consists of eight [members]. Here it is only three; how could this be consistent?' Answer: 'Hetuvidyā is just one branch of the ten branches in the Yogācārabhūmi; how could one contradict the root treatise and introduce internal contradictions, and so forth?' What is the meaning of this? Answer: This too is not correct. The Tarkaśāstra is also a branch of the Yogācārabhūmi; how can one permit it to diverge from the root treatise? If you say it does not diverge because it mentions upanaya and nigamana, why did Dignāga exclude them? Furthermore, the verbal designations of upanaya and nigamana do not differ; how do you know he did not exclude the eight of the Abhidharmasamuccaya? Relying on predominance, it is said there are only three; the intention behind what is excluded differs, and the explanations are also slightly different. Just as the Yogācārabhūmi treats eight as sādhaka yet still distinguishes that truly there are only three, while the others are sādhana of sādhana and thus called sādhana—not that it actually states that all eight are equally sādhana. If the interpretations and selections made by later generations are still like this, why must you rigidly refuse to grant this to the ancient sages and worthies?