因明義斷 1.51

1.51

釋法差別相違中，自云：同無異有，方是相違。此因同有，龜毛遍無，何名相違？答云：此中外道雖總言他用，意成眼等為無積他用，據此即無同。除宗已外，諸臥具等，皆不為無積他用，即為異品。因彼遍轉，故是相違。此釋不然。《唯識論》云「執我是思，受用薩埵賴闍答摩所成。」大等二十三法，云何但許受用五知，不受用餘？故此釋非。又云：二細微共生一麁，所生子微不越因量，裹前二細而別有體。此亦不然。果遍在因中，非果裹父母，如《唯識論》辨。

In explaining dharmaviśeṣaviparītasādhana, [the commentator] himself states: "Only when absent in the sapakṣa and present in the vipakṣa is it contradictory. Since this hetu is present in the sapakṣa and hairs of a tortoise are universally non-existent, how is it contradictory?" He answers: "Here, although the heterodox school generally speaks of 'use for another', they intend to establish that the eyes and so forth are for the use of an unaccumulated other; based on this, there is no sapakṣa. Excluding the pratijñā itself, all bedding, seats, and so forth are not for the use of an unaccumulated other, and are therefore the vipakṣa. Because the hetu is universally present in them, it is contradictory." This explanation is incorrect. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states: "They grasp the self as consciousness, which enjoys what is produced from sattva, rajas, and tamas." Among the twenty-three dharmas beginning with the Great (mahat), how could they only accept the enjoyment of the five cognitive faculties and not the rest? Therefore this explanation is wrong. He also states: "Two subtle atoms jointly produce one coarse atom; the produced secondary atom does not exceed the measure of the causes, enclosing the preceding two subtle atoms while having a distinct substance." This is also incorrect. The effect pervades within the causes; it is not that the effect encloses the parents, as analysed in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi.