因明義斷 1.55

1.55

解似同喻中云：世親及小乘外道立有五分，慈尊、無著、陳那等但立三分，合結為成於喻，是喻上之差別。善立於喻，足顯合結，無繁喻外別立二支。又云：《瑜伽》同類即當《對法》合支，《對法》既立喻訖，何故復說合支？結既許同世親合支，如何即別？又《瑜伽》引喻之言，為同為異？若其是總，同類即是喻，何關《對法》合支。若引喻即說為同類，與世親合支何別？作斯會教，全不相當。應知《對法》合結與世親不殊，《瑜伽》同類異類與《理門》等二喻不別，作者各據一義。所以如古德述，下雖亦作是釋，但為前後相違。

In explaining the semblance of a similar example (sādharmyadṛṣṭāntābhāsa), it is said: 'Vasubandhu and the Hīnayāna non-Buddhists establish five members; Maitreya, Asaṅga, Dignāga, and others only establish three members. Application (upanaya) and conclusion (nigamana) serve to establish the example, being viśeṣas upon the example. If the example is properly formulated, it is sufficient to manifest application and conclusion; there is no need redundantly to establish two separate members outside the example.' It also says: 'In the Yogācārabhūmi, "the same class" (sabhāga) corresponds to the application member in the Abhidharmasamuccaya. Since the Abhidharmasamuccaya has already established the example, why does it again speak of the application member? Since the conclusion is accepted as identical with Vasubandhu's application member, how can it then be different? Furthermore, are the words citing the example in the Yogācārabhūmi similar or dissimilar? If they are general, "the same class" is precisely the example; what does it have to do with the application member of the Abhidharmasamuccaya? If citing the example is said to be "the same class", how does it differ from Vasubandhu's application member?' Reconciling the teachings in this manner is completely improper. One should know that the application and conclusion in the Abhidharmasamuccaya are no different from Vasubandhu's, and 'the same class' and 'different class' in the Yogācārabhūmi are no different from the two examples in the Nyāyamukha and so forth; the authors each rely on a distinct perspective. The reason is as ancient masters described; although [the author] below also provides this interpretation, it simply creates a contradiction between earlier and later.