因明入正理論疏 1.31

1.31

四者似能破，敵者量圓，妄生彈詰，所申過起，故名似破。（此有二義：一者敵無過量，妄生彈詰十四過類等；二者自量有過，謂為破他，偽言謂勝，故名似破。）文說與字，表多體相違（立破、真似，體義有異，說與字者，顯體相違）。致及似言，顯過通能立破（表前能立，有似能立，并顯能破，有似能破。舉真等似，故稱及也）。宗義各定（本所解也），邪正難知（未共許故）。由況既彰（由因況喻，彰謂顯也），是非遂著（宗成曰是，不成曰非。著者明也，真似言興，是非宗曉）。功成勝負，彼此俱明（能立能破，由自發言。功既成勝，證敵俱解。似立似破，自功成負。由他指述，證立俱明），故從多分，皆悟他也。《理門論》云：「隨其所應，為開悟他，說此能立及似能立。」能立悟敵及證義者，由自發言，生他解故。似立悟證及立論主，由他顯己，證自解生，故言隨應。能破、似破，准知亦爾。此論下文，能立、能破皆能悟他，似立、似破不能悟他，正與彼同。故此頌中，據其多分皆悟證者，言唯悟他，不言自悟。又真立、破唯悟於他，似雖亦自，從真名唯。

Fourth is fallacious refutation (dūṣaṇābhāsa): when the opponent's argument is complete, to censure and cross-examine it falsely, generating faults in what one presents, is therefore called fallacious refutation. (This has two aspects: first, when the opponent's argument is without fault, falsely censuring it with the fourteen kinds of sophistical refutations (jāti) and so forth; second, when one's own argument has faults yet one considers it to refute the other, falsely speaking and considering oneself victorious; hence it is called fallacious refutation.) The word "and" (yu) in the text indicates that the multiple entities are mutually distinct (proof and refutation, true and fallacious, differ in their entity and meaning; using the word "and" shows that their entities are mutually distinct). Putting the words "as well as their fallacies" shows that faults apply commonly to both proof and refutation (indicating that the preceding valid proof has fallacious proof, and also showing that valid refutation has fallacious refutation. Adducing the true and coordinating the fallacious, it therefore says "as well as"). The meanings of the theses are each fixed (what was originally understood), but whether they are erroneous or correct is difficult to know (because they are not yet mutually accepted). Since the grounds and analogies are made manifest (from the reason grounds and from the example analogies; "made manifest" means revealed), right and wrong thereupon become evident (when the thesis is accomplished, it is "right"; when not accomplished, it is "wrong". "Evident" means clarified; through the arising of true and fallacious words, the right and wrong of the thesis are understood). When the victory or defeat is accomplished, both sides are fully clear (valid proof and valid refutation proceed from one's own speech; when success achieves victory, both witness and opponent understand; with fallacious proof and fallacious refutation, one's own effort results in defeat; through the other's pointing it out, both witness and proponent are clarified), and therefore, in the majority of cases, both enlighten others. The Nyāyamukha says: "According to what is appropriate, for the sake of enlightening others, one expounds this valid proof and fallacious proof." Valid proof enlightens the opponent and the witness, because by uttering words oneself, understanding is generated in others. Fallacious proof enlightens the witness and the proponent himself, because through the other exposing oneself, understanding arises in oneself and the witness; therefore it says "according to what is appropriate". Valid refutation and fallacious refutation should be known by analogy to be likewise. In the subsequent text of this treatise, valid proof and valid refutation are both able to enlighten others, while fallacious proof and fallacious refutation cannot enlighten others, which accords directly with that. Therefore, in this verse, relying on the fact that in the majority of cases they enlighten the witness, it says "solely enlighten others", and does not say "enlighten oneself". Furthermore, true proof and refutation solely enlighten others; and though the fallacious also [enlighten] oneself, following the true, it is termed "solely".