因明義斷 1.7

1.7

有人正釋論文解能立中云：依舊解云，世親已前，舉宗等取因喻，《瑜伽》總名能立，由有多言故。陳那已後，但取因喻，不取其宗，取所等因喻。乃至云：自釋教東流，皆為此解。准依理教，即理未然。其義云何？答：此亦不然。此還將元一向唯說陳那以宗唯在所立、不在能立，古之會釋所引如前。但是據今陳那論意，唯說因喻名為能立。廣顯同異，理教如前。此乃重陳，繁不再述。

Someone, directly interpreting the text of the treatise explaining sādhana, says: According to the ancient explanation, prior to Vasubandhu, mentioning the pratijñā and so forth subsumed the hetu and udāharaṇa, and the *Yogācārabhūmi* collectively called them sādhana because there were multiple statements. After Dignāga, one only takes the hetu and udāharaṇa and does not take the pratijñā; one takes the hetu and udāharaṇa subsumed by "and so forth". Down to saying: Since the eastward transmission of the Buddhist teachings, all have adopted this explanation. Yet based on reason and authoritative texts, in principle it is not so. How is this meaning to be understood? Answer: This too is not so. This merely takes the original one-sided claim that Dignāga held the pratijñā to be exclusively in the sādhya and not in the sādhana; the reconciliations of the ancients cited are as before. It is merely based on the intention of Dignāga's treatise at present, which exclusively speaks of the hetu and udāharaṇa as sādhana. The extensive presentation of similarities and differences, reason and authoritative texts, is as before. This would merely be repeating it; being superfluous, it will not be stated again.