因明入正理論疏 1.83

1.83

問：「既兩共許，何故不名共成而言極成？」答：「自性、差別乃是諸法至極成理，由彼不悟，能立立之；若言共成，非顯真極。又因明法有自比量及他比量、能立能破，若言共成，應無有此。又顯宗依，先須至於理極究竟，能依宗性方是所諍，故言極成而不言共。」

Question: 'Since both mutually accept it, why is it not termed "commonly established" (gongcheng) rather than "universally accepted" (jicheng, prasiddha)?' Answer: 'The intrinsic nature and distinction are the ultimate principles of all phenomena. Because [the opponent] does not understand them, the proponent establishes them; if one said "commonly established", it would not express genuine ultimacy. Furthermore, the method of hetuvidyā contains arguments for oneself (svānumāna), arguments for others (parānumāna), proof (sādhana), and refutation (dūṣaṇa); if one said "commonly established", these could not exist. Moreover, to reveal the bases of the thesis (pakṣa-āśraya), one must first attain the utmost culmination of reason; only then is the dependent nature of the thesis (pakṣatva) the subject of dispute. Therefore it is said to be "universally accepted" and not "common".'