因明入正理論疏 1.65

1.65

述曰：釋能立義。宗義舊定，因喻先成，何故今說為能立也？《理門》亦云：「由宗、因、喻多言，辨說他未了義。」諸有問者，謂敵證等。未了義者，立論者宗。其敵論者，一由無知、二為疑惑、三各宗學，未了立者立何義旨而有所問，故以宗等如是多言，成立宗義，除彼無知、猶預、僻執，令了立者所立義宗。其論義法，《瑜伽》等說有六處所：一於王家、二於執理家、三於大眾中、四於賢哲者前、五於善解法義沙門婆羅門前、六於樂法義者前。於此六中，必須證者善自他宗，心無偏儻，出言有則，能定是非。證者有問：「立何論宗？」今以宗等如是多言，申其宗旨，令證義者了所立義。故者，所以，第五轉聲。由者，因由，第三轉攝，因由敵證問所立宗，說宗、因、喻開示於彼，所以多言名為能立。開示有三：一、敵者未閑，今能立等剏為之開；證者先解，今能立等重為之示。二、雙為言開，示其正理。三、為廢忘宗而問為開，為欲憶宗而問為示。諸有問者未了義故，略有二釋：一、諸問者通證及敵。敵者發問，理不須疑；證者久識自他宗義，寧容發問未了義耶？一年邁久忘；二賓主紛紜；三理有百途，問依何轍；四初聞未審，須更審知；五為破疑心，解師明意，故審問宗之未了義。二、應分別，為其證者論，但應言多言，開示問者義故，證者久閑而無未了；為其敵論者論，應說言多言，開示諸有問者未了義故，敵者於宗有未了故。今合為文，非彼證者亦名未了，由開示二，故說多言名為能立。

The commentary states: This explains the meaning of a proof. If the thesis is already established of old and the reason and examples are proven beforehand, why are they now called a proof? The Nyāyamukha also says: "By means of the multiple statements of thesis, reason, and example, one explains an uncomprehended meaning to another." "Those who inquire" refers to the opponent, the judges, and so forth. "The uncomprehended meaning" is the thesis of the proponent. The opponent—first, due to ignorance; second, out of doubt; and third, [owing to] their respective sectarian tenets—does not comprehend what meaning and principle the proponent establishes and thus inquires. Therefore, through such multiple statements as the thesis and so on, one establishes the meaning of the thesis, removes their ignorance, indecision, and erroneous attachments, and causes them to comprehend the thesis of meaning established by the proponent. Regarding the rules of debate, the Yogācārabhūmi and other works state that there are six places [of debate]: first, at the royal court; second, at the court of a magistrate; third, amid a great assembly; fourth, before the virtuous and wise; fifth, before śramaṇas and brāhmaṇas who thoroughly understand the meaning of the Dharma; sixth, before those who take pleasure in the meaning of the Dharma. Among these six, it is necessary that the judges be skilled in their own and others' tenets, have impartial minds, speak with proper standard, and be able to determine right and wrong. The judge asks: "What thesis do you establish?" Now, by means of such multiple statements as the thesis and so on, one sets forth their fundamental thesis, causing the adjudicator of meaning to comprehend the established meaning. "Due to" (故) means reason, falling under the fifth case [ablative]. "By means of" (由) means cause, subsumed under the third case [instrumental]. Because the opponent and the judge inquire about the established thesis, one states the thesis, reason, and example to disclose and demonstrate it to them; hence, the multiple statements are called a proof. There are three senses of disclosing and demonstrating: first, the opponent has not yet understood it, so now the proof and so on open it up for the first time; the judge has understood it beforehand, so now the proof and so on re-demonstrate it. Second, both are spoken to open it up, demonstrating the correct principle. Third, when one inquires because one has forgotten the thesis, it is to disclose; when one inquires wishing to recall the thesis, it is to demonstrate. For "due to disclosing the uncomprehended meaning to those who inquire," there are briefly two interpretations: First, "those who inquire" applies generally to both judges and opponents. That the opponent raises an inquiry is beyond doubt in principle; yet the judge has long known the tenets of both self and other, so how could they be allowed to inquire about an uncomprehended meaning? [They may do so for five reasons:] first, being advanced in years, they have long forgotten; second, host and guest are engaged in confusing dispute; third, principles have a hundred paths, so they ask which track is being followed; fourth, upon hearing it for the first time it is not yet clear, so it must be investigated further; fifth, to dispel doubts and make the master's intention clear, they therefore scrutinize the uncomprehended meaning of the thesis. Second, a distinction should be made: if speaking for the judge, one should only say "through multiple statements, disclosing the meaning to the inquirer," because the judge has long been familiar and is not lacking comprehension; if speaking for the opponent, one should say "through multiple statements, disclosing the uncomprehended meaning to those who inquire," because the opponent lacks comprehension regarding the thesis. Here, combined into one text, it does not mean that the judge is also called "lacking comprehension"; since there are two senses—disclosing and demonstrating—it is said that multiple statements are called a proof.