因明入正理論疏 2.106

2.106

立無果者，果謂果利，對敵申宗本爭先競，返順他義，所立無果，由此相符亦為過失，結此九過名似立宗。然《雜集論》第十六云：「立宗者，謂以所應成，自所許義，宣示於他，令彼解了。」此簡五失。師子覺說：「若不言以所應成者，自宗已成而說示他，應名立宗。」此言意說：若非今競所應成義，但說自宗先已成義，應名立宗。若不言自所許義者，說示他宗所應成義，應名立宗。此二以簡相符極成。若不言他者，獨唱此言，應名立宗。今要有敵亦為九過，彼說無敵亦為過故。若不言宣示者，以身表示此義，應名立宗。以言能立不待身故。若如提婆破外道義，動身令解，亦名破他。若不言令他解了者，聽者未解此義，應名立宗。即除相符，攝餘八過，他皆未解，皆非真宗。或此闕無能立，亦非所競之宗，他未解故。或猶預宗，他未解故。隨其所應，九過中攝，准因當知。若如所安立無一切過量故，建立我、法自性若有若無，我、法差別遍不遍等，具足前相是名立宗。若准彼文，過多於此；第三、第四或并第五少分，此中無故。

'The proposal is without result': 'result' means advantage or benefit. Stating a thesis against an opponent originally aims to resolve an earlier dispute; if one contrariwise complies with the other's position, what is proposed is without result. Due to this, siddhasādhana is also a fault. Concluding these nine faults, they are called pseudo-theses (pakṣābhāsa). However, the sixteenth fascicle of the Samuccaya states: 'To establish a thesis means, by what ought to be established and by what is accepted by oneself, to declare and display it to another, causing them to understand.' This eliminates five errors. Buddhasiṃha says: 'If it did not say "by what ought to be established", then if one's own tenet were already established and one declared and showed it to another, it would be called establishing a thesis.' The meaning of these words is: if it were not a meaning that ought to be established in the present dispute, but merely stating a meaning already established previously in one's own tenet, it would be called establishing a thesis. 'If it did not say "by what is accepted by oneself", then declaring and showing a meaning that ought to be established in another's tenet would be called establishing a thesis.' These two [clauses] eliminate siddhasādhana. 'If it did not say "to another", then chanting these words to oneself alone would be called establishing a thesis.' Now, it is necessary to have an opponent for there to be the nine faults, whereas they state that having no opponent is also a fault. 'If it did not say "declare and display", then indicating this meaning with the body would be called establishing a thesis.' This is because proof through speech does not depend on bodily gesture. If it were like Āryadeva refuting the non-Buddhists' tenets by moving his body to make them understand, that too would be called refuting another. 'If it did not say "causing them to understand", then when the listener has not yet understood this meaning, it would be called establishing a thesis.' That is, excluding siddhasādhana, this encompasses the remaining eight faults; since the other has not understood any of them, none of them is a true thesis. Or else, this lacks an instrument of proof (sādhana) and is also not a disputed thesis, because the other has not understood it. Or it is a doubtful thesis, because the other has not understood it. Corresponding to what is appropriate, they are subsumed under the nine faults, as should be known by analogy with the reason (hetu). If it is a valid cognition devoid of all faults according to how it is established, establishing whether the intrinsic nature (svabhāva) of self and phenomena exists or does not exist, whether the specific distinction (viśeṣa) of self and phenomena is pervasive or non-pervasive, etc., being fully endowed with the preceding characteristics—this is called establishing a thesis. If one relies on that text, the faults are more than here; because the third, fourth, or even a small part of the fifth are absent here.