觀喻與似喻品第四
Chapter 4: Valid and Fallacious Examples
所說三相因， 善住於宗法，
所稱餘二相， 以譬喻顯示。
所立隨行因， 所立無則無，
同法及異法， 當說為譬喻。
以非遮而遮， 如是無有相。
由非作故常， 由壞此果性，
此說則不遍， 非樂等合離。
共不共相違， 亦應成能立，
一一俱未說， 故說為二喻。
如自所決定， 欲生他決定，
說宗法繫屬， 所立餘應捨。
非是離於因， 別說於譬喻，
為顯因義故， 比度非無義。
成因繫屬故， 說二譬喻者，
喻應為別有。 別則同世間。
彼等說喻時， 但說諸同法，
捨能立所立， 成單純比度。
於彼異法中， 為非遮比度，
彼異法量式， 異品同時說。
若宣說返者， 或立所立因，
或是彼差別， 同說應無窮。
唯宗法是因， 有誤亦應成。
俱說不成者， 九中俱亦有。
已說譬喻。
The three characteristics mentioned as causes Are properly based on the subject of the proposition. The other two characteristics, as stated, Are shown through analogies.
What follows from the thesis, And what is absent when the thesis is absent— These are the similar and dissimilar examples, Which should be explained as analogies.
Negation through non-assertion Thus has no defining mark. Because it is not created, it is eternal; Because this destroys the nature of the effect.
This statement does not apply universally; It is not the conjunction or disjunction of pleasure and so on. Common, uncommon, and contradictory— These too could serve as grounds for proof.
None of these have been fully stated individually, So they are described as two analogies. Just as one determines for oneself, One seeks to produce certainty in another.
Having stated the relation of the subject's property, One should set aside the other aspects of the thesis. It is not that the analogy is separate from the reason; Rather, to clarify the meaning of the reason, Inference is not without purpose.
Because the reason's relation is established, The two analogies are mentioned. If the analogy were something else entirely, It would be like ordinary worldly examples.
When they speak of analogies, They mention only similar instances, Leaving aside the supporting ground and the thesis, Reducing it to mere inference.
In the dissimilar instances, It is inference through non-assertion. The measuring pattern of dissimilar instances Is stated together with the contrary case.
If one speaks of the opposite, Or establishes the thesis through the reason, Or through a distinction of it, Mentioning both would lead to infinite regress.
Only the subject's property is the reason; Even if mistaken, it could still hold. When both are stated but do not establish, Among the nine types, both are also present.
Thus concludes the section on analogies.
無因所立二， 異品未作無，
隨行倒二種， 無隨行亦似。
無因等無喻， 隨行顛倒等，
未說繫屬故， 非有繫比度。
是中間頌。
This is the middle verse.
論軌中說：決定顯示彼等繫屬者，是為譬喻。
In the treatise on reasoning, it is stated: what clearly reveals the relationships between those elements is metaphor.
不應說彼等， 非互所立故；
亦非唯同法， 顯示其俱行。
若義亦說餘， 不應說異品；
若義品顯示， 無不生繫屬。
不取所立者， 則應全非有。
由彼成餘故， 即由顯能立，
應得非樂常， 非唯一喻過。
如前已宣說。
Do not describe them as such, For they are not mutually established; Nor is it merely through shared qualities That their coexistence is shown. If the meaning extends to others, One should not speak of dissimilar cases; If the meaning is shown by examples, There is no connection without dependence. Without taking the thing to be proved, It would be entirely nonexistent. What is established by it, being derived from another, Is then demonstrated as a valid proof, Leading to the undesirable and the eternal— Not just a single flaw in examples, As has been explained before.
諸正理派者說：由所立同法，通達彼法之喻是為說喻。從彼相違是顛倒喻。對彼曰：
The Vaiśeṣika philosophers say: A metaphor that helps one understand a thing through its resemblance to a known example is called a valid metaphor. When it contradicts that resemblance, it is a distorted metaphor. To this, we reply:
能了不見彼， 俱說應無義，
異門餘成故， 不合所立法。
觀待於說喻， 言如是結合，
於所立如是， 結合不應理。
總唯說為因， 別依自隨行，
非具對治品， 別門亦應爾。
If one understands but does not see it directly, Both are said to lack true meaning. Since other paths can establish it, It does not fit the property to be proven.
Depending on the stated example, Words conjoin in such a way; For what is to be established, Such a conjunction is not valid.
Generally, it is only spoken of as a reason, Specifically based on its own alignment; Without the remedy's opposing force, Other paths would likewise hold.
諸勝論者說：俱極成為喻。對彼亦云：
The Logicians say: "The combination of both is the example." To that, we also reply:
說虛空喻式， 或非語一分，
不說隨行相。 彼是喻影像，
能立結合義， 自續亦無義。
The simile of space is taught, Or a fraction of non-speech; Not taught as the form that follows. That is but an image, a likeness, A means to establish connection, Yet of itself it holds no meaning.