因明義斷 1.32

1.32

有人作四句中有遍是宗法性，非同定有、非異遍無者，即法差別相違因是。此義如何？答：亦復不可。指此為句，不違道理。然云於同品真他上無故，非同品定有。他中含真假他，若為復將真他為同品？設若言他是假他故，真他為同，臥具亦同品，即同定有性，何得為此句？若云以臥具是真他用，是異品收。豈非假他亦受用耶？

Someone, making four alternatives, had: 'being pervasively a property of the pakṣa (pakṣadharmatva), but neither definitely present in the sapakṣa nor pervasively absent in the vipakṣa,' which is the dharmaviśeṣaviparītasādhana hetu. What about this meaning? Answer: This too is inadmissible. Pointing to this as an alternative does not contradict reason. However, they say: 'Because it is absent on the genuine other among the sapakṣa, it is not definitely present in the sapakṣa.' The term 'other' encompasses both genuine and nominal others; how can one take only the genuine other as the sapakṣa? Even if one says that the other is a nominal other, and therefore the genuine other is sapakṣa, bedding is also sapakṣa, which means it has the nature of definite presence in the sapakṣa; how could it be this alternative? If they say: 'Because bedding is used by the genuine other, it is included in the vipakṣa,' does not the nominal other also enjoy its use?