因明義斷 1.64

1.64

又敘《方便心論》三種增減，即證《瑜伽》云「言詞複重，或復減少。《對法》云無限者，謂言詞重疊，所說義理或增或減。」此並古德成文，何得說言古師八為能立，即望八法辨闕？此亦不然。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》、《對法》三論，皆自顯說能立有八，何以故違云不說八？何不令陳那就古師能立八，強欲會本論就末陳那三？由此故知，今古意殊，各不乖返。廣會如前，及本疏述。

Furthermore, recounting the three kinds of addition and deficiency in the Upāyahṛdaya confirms the Yogācārabhūmi’s statement: “Redundant words, or omissions. The Abhidharmasamuccaya says unlimitedness refers to repetitive words, or the meaning explained having additions or deficiencies.” These are established texts by ancient masters; how could one say that the ancient masters took eight as sādhana and identified deficiencies in reference to these eight factors? This is also incorrect. The three treatises—Yogācārabhūmi, Prakaraṇāryavācā, and Abhidharmasamuccaya—all explicitly state that sādhana has eight [members]; why deliberately contradict them by saying they do not state eight? Why not let Dignāga conform to the ancient masters’ eight sādhanas, instead of forcibly trying to reconcile the root treatises with Dignāga’s later three? From this we know that the intentions of the modern and ancient differ, and neither is inconsistent in itself. This has been reconciled in detail earlier and in the main commentary.