因明義斷 1.38

1.38

有人解不共不定中與他相違決定量，出不定過云：謂如共等四不定因，後二相中闕一相故是不定。為如緣生故因，後二相中闕一相故非不定攝。以有此過故，不成相違決定者。其義云何？答：此亦不然。此緣生因闕於何相？若有異品，因或濫行。異品既無，因無濫失，即是其因。唯同品有，異品遍無，豈無異體？此緣生因於異品轉，云闕一相，此量是非。及相闕具，亦廣如前，更不重述。

Someone explains, regarding the viruddhāvyabhicārin inference against another within the asādhāraṇa-anaikāntika, pointing out the anaikāntika fallacy, saying: "The four anaikāntika reasons such as sādhāraṇa are anaikāntika because they lack one of the latter two characteristics (rūpa). Is it that, like the reason 'because of being dependently arisen', it is not subsumed under anaikāntika because it lacks one of the latter two characteristics? Since it has this fallacy, it does not establish a viruddhāvyabhicārin." What is the meaning of this? Answer: This too is not so. Which characteristic does this reason "because of being dependently arisen" lack? If there were a vipakṣa, the reason might stray into it. Since there is no vipakṣa, the reason does not incur the fallacy of straying; it is indeed a [valid] reason. It exists only in the sapakṣa, and is completely absent in the vipakṣa; how could it lack a distinct entity? To say that this reason "because of being dependently arisen" operates in the vipakṣa and lacks one characteristic—the correctness or incorrectness of this inference, and the deficiency or completeness of its characteristics, have already been broadly explained as above, and will not be repeated.