因明入正理論疏 2.119

2.119

故有大名居士，聲德獨高，道頴五天，芳傳四主，時賢不敢斥其尊德，號曰抱蹉迦，此云食邑，學藝超群，理當食邑，即勝軍論師也。四十餘年立一比量云：諸大乘經皆佛說宗，兩俱極成非諸佛語所不攝故因，如《增一》等阿笈摩喻。注在《唯識決擇》中。兩俱極成非佛語所不攝者，立、敵共許；非佛語所不攝，即非外道及《六足》等教之所攝故。時久流行，無敢徵詰。大師至彼而難之曰：「且《發智論》薩婆多師自許佛說，亦餘小乘及大乘者兩俱極成非佛語所不攝，豈汝大乘許佛說耶？又誰許大乘兩俱極成非佛語所不攝？」是諸小乘及諸外道兩俱極成非佛語所攝，唯大乘者許非彼攝，因犯隨一。若以《發智》亦入宗中，違自教，因犯一分兩俱不成，因不在彼《發智》宗故。不以為宗故有不定，小乘為不定言。為如自許《發智》兩俱極成非佛語所不攝故，汝大乘教非佛語耶？為如《增一》等兩俱極成非佛語所不攝故，汝大乘教並佛語耶？若立宗為如《發智》極成非佛語所不攝，薩婆多等便違自宗，自許是佛語故，故為不定言。為如自許《發智》極成非佛語所不攝，彼大乘非佛語耶？以不定中亦有自、他及兩俱過，今與大乘為自不定故。由此大師正彼因云：「自許極成非佛語所不攝故。」簡彼《發智》等非自許故，便無茲失。《唯識》亦言：「諸大乘經至教量攝。」樂大乘者許能顯示無顛倒理契經攝故，如《增一》等。以諸因中皆應簡別，並如前說。

Therefore, there was a householder of great renown whose reputation and virtue stood singularly preeminent, whose spiritual acumen excelled throughout the Five Indias, and whose fragrant fame spread to the four sovereigns. The worthy contemporaries dared not address him directly by his honorable name and called him "Bhojaka," which here means "one who enjoys an estate"; his learning and talents were peerless, and reason warranted his enjoying an estate—he was none other than Master Jayasena. For more than forty years he maintained a single inference, which said: Pratijñā: "All Mahāyāna sūtras are the Buddha's word"; Hetu: "Because they are not unincluded within the words of the Buddhas, as both parties mutually establish"; Dṛṣṭānta: "Just like the Āgamas such as the Ekottarikāgama." This was noted in the Viniścaya of the Vijñaptimātratā. "Not unincluded within the Buddha's words, as both parties mutually establish" is mutually accepted by proponent and opponent; not being unincluded within the Buddha's words means not being included within the teachings of non-Buddhists, the Ṣaṭpādābhidharma, and so forth. It circulated for a long time, and none dared cross-examine it. When the Great Master [Xuanzang] arrived there, he objected to it, saying: "Now, the Jñānaprasthāna is accepted by the Sarvāstivāda masters themselves as the Buddha's word, and it is also not unincluded within the Buddha's words as mutually established by both parties—namely, the remaining Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna adherents. Would you, a Mahāyānist, accept it as the Buddha's word? Furthermore, who accepts that Mahāyāna is not unincluded within the Buddha's words as mutually established by both parties?" It is mutually established by all Hīnayāna adherents and all non-Buddhists that it is not included within the Buddha's words, and only Mahāyāna adherents accept that it is not included within theirs; hence the reason commits [the fallacy of] anyatara. If the Jñānaprasthāna were also included within the pratijñā, it would contradict one's own doctrine, and the reason would commit [the fallacy of being] partially unestablished for both (ubhaya-asiddha), because the reason does not reside in the subject (pakṣa) of that Jñānaprasthāna. Because it was not taken as the pratijñā, an inconclusiveness arises, as the Hīnayāna proponent would formulate the inconclusive statement: "Is your Mahāyāna teaching not the Buddha's word, just as the Jñānaprasthāna, accepted by yourself, is not unincluded within the Buddha's words as mutually established by both parties? Or is your Mahāyāna teaching entirely the Buddha's word, just as the Ekottarikāgama and so forth are not unincluded within the Buddha's words as mutually established by both parties?" If the formulation of the pratijñā were "as the Jñānaprasthāna is mutually established not to be unincluded within the Buddha's words," the Sarvāstivādins and others would contradict their own doctrine, because they themselves accept it to be the Buddha's word; therefore it is an inconclusive statement: "Is that Mahāyāna not the Buddha's word, just as the Jñānaprasthāna, accepted by yourself, is mutually established not to be unincluded within the Buddha's words?" Because within inconclusiveness there are also faults pertaining to oneself, the other, and both, here it constitutes an inconclusiveness for oneself (svānekāntika) against Mahāyāna. For this reason, the Great Master corrected his reason to say: "Because it is not unincluded within the Buddha's words as accepted by oneself to be firmly established." By qualifying that the Jñānaprasthāna and so forth are not accepted by oneself, it is free from this defect. The Vijñaptimātratā also states: "All Mahāyāna sūtras are subsumed under the authority of scripture (āptāgama-pramāṇa), because they are subsumed under sūtras accepted by those who delight in Mahāyāna as capable of revealing the non-erroneous truth, just like the Ekottarikāgama and so forth." Thus in all reasons one must include qualifications, entirely as explained previously.