因明義斷 1.5

1.5

有人云：若因一喻二為多言名能立者，於中隨闕名能立過。如闕異喻，應是過收。若言是過，違《掌珍論》，彼闕異喻非過故也。此義如何？答：亦不然。誰言彼論比量無過？《唯識論》云「有依大乘遣相空理，依似比量，撥無此識及一切法。」若云彼說餘量，非《掌珍》者，應舉誠言。又此量中，豈不撥無一切法耶？又《理門論》云「為必具二譬喻言詞，方成能立。為如其因，但隨說一。」論自答云「若就正理，應具說二。由是具足，顯示所立。」乃至云「若有於此一分已成，隨說一分亦成能立。」准彼論意，於二喻中若隨解一，不舉非過。若俱妄解，待說方悟，要具說之。故云「若就正理，應具說二；若不說者，明知不正。」又此論云「又初能立，缺減過性。」若云喻總言闕一不成闕，亦應宗總言闕一不成闕。又解：誰言《掌珍》闕於異喻？異喻本為遮因濫行。無依因不濫，去正無宗因，即是異喻。故《理門論》釋二喻云「前是遮詮，後唯止濫。」乃至云「由是雖對不立實有太虛空等，而得顯示無有宗，處無因義成。」若無異所依，異喻不得立，此言何用？若爾，既具支，何名似比量？答？犯餘過，廣如別疏。

Someone says: "If the one hetu and two udāharaṇas constitute the 'multiple words' named sādhana, then any deficiency among them is named a fault of the sādhana. For instance, lacking a vaidharmyodāharaṇa should be included as a fault. If one says it is a fault, this contradicts the Karatalaratna, for in that text lacking a vaidharmyodāharaṇa is not a fault." What is the meaning of this? Answer: This too is not so. Who said that the anumāna of that treatise is faultless? The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: "Some, relying on the Mahāyāna principle of emptiness that eliminates characteristics and depending on a pseudo-inference, negate this consciousness and all phenomena." If one says that it speaks of other inferences and not the Karatalaratna, one should produce truthful words. Furthermore, in this inference, does it not negate all phenomena? Moreover, the Nyāyamukha states: "Must one possess both udāharaṇa statements before accomplishing a sādhana, or, as with the hetu, may one state just either one?" The treatise itself answers: "If based on the correct reasoning, one should state both completely. Through their completeness, the sādhya is demonstrated..." up to "...If someone has already established one portion regarding this, then stating either portion also accomplishes a sādhana." Judging by the intent of that treatise, if either of the two udāharaṇas is understood, not presenting [the other] is not a fault; but if both are falsely understood and one awaits being spoken to before awakening, it is necessary to state both completely. Therefore it states: "If based on the correct reasoning, one should state both completely; if one does not state them, know clearly that it is not correct." Furthermore, this treatise states: "Moreover, the first sādhana has the nature of the fault of deficiency." If it is said that the udāharaṇa is general and lacking one does not constitute a deficiency, then the pratijñā should also be general and lacking one would not constitute a deficiency. Another explanation says: Who said that the Karatalaratna lacks a vaidharmyodāharaṇa? A vaidharmyodāharaṇa is fundamentally meant to prevent the hetu from overextending. Where there is no substratum, the hetu does not overextend; where the correct is absent and there is neither pratijñā nor hetu, that itself is the vaidharmyodāharaṇa. Therefore the Nyāyamukha, in explaining the two udāharaṇas, states: "The former is an exclusionary expression; the latter solely puts a stop to overextension..." up to "...Thereby, even though facing [an opponent] who does not establish real space or the like, one is able to demonstrate that where the pratijñā is absent, the meaning of the hetu being absent is established." If when there is no different substratum a vaidharmyodāharaṇa cannot be established, what would be the use of these words? If that is so, since it is complete in members, why is it called a pseudo-inference? Answer: It incurs other faults, as detailed in the separate commentary.