因明入正理論疏 1.81

1.81

問：「既言極成，何所簡別？有幾非成，言成簡別？」答：「能別定成，且所別中有自不成、有他不成、有俱不成、有俱非不成，前三是過，第四句非。又有自一分不成、有他一分不成、有俱一分不成、有俱非一分不成，前三並非，第四有是。所別定成，能別不成，為句亦爾。如是偏句總別，合有四種四句，其俱不成全有五種四句。有自能別不成他所別、有他能別不成自所別、有俱能別不成自所別、有俱能別不成他所別、有自能別不成俱所別、有他能別不成俱所別、有俱能別不成俱所別、有俱能別不成俱非所別。如能別不成為首有二全四句，所別不成亦如是。二四句中，其前七句皆是此過，其第八句是前偏過。雖總有四，體唯有二，後則是前，更無異故，所以但名二四句。有自兩俱不成非他、有他兩俱不成非自、有俱兩俱不成、有俱非自他兩俱不成，前三句非，第四句是。如是合有五種全句，一一離之為一分句，復有五句，總成十句。復將一分句對餘全句，復將全句對餘一分句，如理應思，恐繁且止。其初有法不成偏句，如下所別不成中解。能別不成偏句，如下能別不成中解。兩俱不成諸句，如下兩俱不成中解。其兩俱全分，一分不極成，則宗兩俱不成；其自他全分，一分不極成，則宗隨一不成。義准亦有宗猶豫不成，兩俱、隨一、全分、一分等過，至似宗中當廣分別。二種自性及二差別不極成，此皆總攝。為簡彼非，故二宗依皆言極成。」

Question: 'Since it states "universally accepted" (prasiddha), what does it delimit? How many varieties of non-acceptance are there, such that speaking of acceptance delimits them?' Answer: 'Assuming the qualifier is definitely established: with respect to the qualificand, there is unestablished for oneself (svato 'siddha), unestablished for the other (parato 'siddha), unestablished for both (ubhayāsiddha), and not unestablished for both. The first three are fallacies; the fourth alternative is not. Furthermore, there is partially unestablished for oneself, partially unestablished for the other, partially unestablished for both, and not partially unestablished for both. The first three are all fallacies; the fourth is correct. Assuming the qualificand is definitely established while the qualifier is unestablished, the tetralemma is likewise so. In this way, combining the specific and general alternatives yields four kinds of tetralemmas; as for both being unestablished, there are altogether five kinds of tetralemmas. There is: the qualifier unestablished for oneself while the qualificand is unestablished for the other; the qualifier unestablished for the other while the qualificand is unestablished for oneself; the qualifier unestablished for both while the qualificand is unestablished for oneself; the qualifier unestablished for both while the qualificand is unestablished for the other; the qualifier unestablished for oneself while the qualificand is unestablished for both; the qualifier unestablished for the other while the qualificand is unestablished for both; the qualifier unestablished for both while the qualificand is unestablished for both; and the qualifier unestablished for both while neither is unestablished in the qualificand. Just as with the qualifier being unestablished as the primary heading there are two complete tetralemmas, with the qualificand being unestablished it is also like this. Among the two tetralemmas, the first seven alternatives are all this fallacy; the eighth alternative is the former partial fallacy. Although altogether there are four, their essence is only two; since the latter is just the former and nothing different, they are merely called two tetralemmas. There is: both unestablished for oneself and not for the other; both unestablished for the other and not for oneself; both unestablished for both; and both unestablished neither for oneself nor for the other. The first three alternatives are fallacies, and the fourth alternative is correct. Thus altogether there are five kinds of complete tetralemmas. Analyzing each individually into partial alternatives yields another five alternatives, making ten alternatives in total. Furthermore, pairing the partial alternatives against the other complete alternatives, and pairing the complete alternatives against the other partial alternatives—this should be considered in accordance with reason, but for fear of prolixity we shall pause here. The initial partial alternatives of the unestablished possessor of a property will be explained below under the unestablished qualificand (viśeṣyāsiddha). The partial alternatives of the unestablished qualifier will be explained below under the unestablished qualifier (viśeṣaṇāsiddha). The various alternatives of being unestablished for both will be explained below under unestablished for both (ubhayāsiddha). If it is completely or partially unestablished for both, then the thesis is unestablished for both; if it is completely or partially unestablished for either oneself or the other, then the thesis is unestablished for either party (anyatarāsiddha). By implication, there are also fallacies such as the thesis being dubiously unestablished (saṃdigdhāsiddha), unestablished for both, for either, completely, or partially, which will be extensively distinguished when we reach the fallacious theses (pakṣābhāsa). Non-acceptance of the two kinds of intrinsic nature and the two kinds of distinction are all subsumed herein. To exclude those faults, both bases of the thesis (pakṣanirdeśa-pada) are stated to be "universally accepted".'