因明入正理論疏 1.92

1.92

凡宗有四：一、遍所許宗，如眼見色，彼此兩宗皆共許故。二、先承稟宗，如佛弟子習諸法空，鵂鶹弟子立有實我。三、傍憑義宗，如立聲無常，傍憑顯無我。四、不顧論宗，隨立者情所樂便立，如佛弟子立佛法義。若善外宗，樂之便立，不須定顧。此中前三不可建立。初遍許宗，若許立者，便立已成，先來共許，何須建立？次承稟者，若二外道共稟僧佉，對諍本宗，亦空無果，立已成故。次義憑宗，非言所諍，此復何用？本諍由言，望他解起，傍顯別義，非為本成，故亦不可立為正論。然於因明未見其過。既於因過，說法差別相違之因，即傍准宗可成宗義，然非正立。今簡前三皆不可立，唯有第四不顧論宗，可以為宗，是隨立者自意所樂，前三皆是自不樂故。

In general, there are four kinds of theses: 1. A universally accepted thesis, such as 'the eye sees form', because both parties universally accept it. 2. A traditionally received thesis, such as a Buddhist disciple practicing the emptiness of all dharmas, or an Ulūka (Vaiśeṣika) disciple positing a real self. 3. An implied thesis, such as stating that sound is impermanent to indirectly imply that it is non-self. 4. A thesis disregarding school tenets, where one posits whatever one wishes according to one's own inclination, such as a Buddhist disciple positing a Buddhist doctrine; or, if skilled in non-Buddhist systems, positing them if one wishes, without being bound to one's school. Among these, the first three cannot be validly established. First, as for the universally accepted thesis: if it were permitted to be established, it would be [the fallacy of] establishing what is already established; since it was mutually accepted from the outset, why establish it? Next, as for the traditionally received thesis: if two non-Buddhists who both follow Sāṃkhya argue against each other over their fundamental tenets, this too is futile and fruitless, because it establishes what is already established. Next, as for the implied thesis: it is not the subject of verbal dispute, so what use is it? Primary dispute arises from words, aiming to generate understanding in another; an indirectly indicated secondary meaning is not the primary object of proof, so it also cannot be posited as the formal argument. However, in hetuvidyā, this is not seen as a thesis defect: since among the defects of the reason there is the reason that contradicts the implied predicate (dharma-viśeṣa-viparīta-sādhana), an implied thesis can indeed constitute the thesis meaning, but it is not the primary thesis posited. Now, eliminating the first three as not posited, only the fourth—the thesis disregarding school tenets—can be a valid thesis: it is according to what the proponent intends by their own inclination, whereas the first three are not by one's own inclination.