因明入正理論疏 2.184

2.184

述曰：第三、結成不定也。二因皆不能令他敵、證生決定一智，故如前五俱是不定。《理門論》頌結四相違及不定云：「觀宗法審察，若所樂違害，成躊躇顛倒，異此無似因。」由觀察宗法，令審察者智成躊躇，名不定因。二因雖皆具足三相，令他不定，與不定名。論說此二俱不定攝，故不應分別前後是非，凡如此二因二皆不定故。古有斷言：如殺遲碁，後下為勝。若爾，聲強勝論應負。然《理門論》謗斷聲勝二論義云：「又於此中現教力勝，故應依此思求決定。」彼說此因二皆不定，然斷聲論先立聲常，所聞性因。勝論後說所作性因，云聲無常，可如殺遲碁，先下負後勝。今此與彼前後相違，故不應爾。

Commentary: Third, concluding that they are inconclusive. Neither of the two reasons can cause the other party—the opponent or the arbiter—to generate a single decisive cognition; therefore, like the preceding five, both are inconclusive. The verse in the Nyāyamukha concluding the four contradictories and the inconclusive states: "Examining the property of the subject, / If what is desired is contradicted, / It results in hesitation or error; / Aside from this there is no semblance of a reason." Because examining the property of the subject causes the cognition of the investigator to fall into hesitation, it is named an inconclusive reason. Although both reasons fully possess the three characteristics, because they render the other inconclusive, they are given the name "inconclusive." The treatise says that both are subsumed under the inconclusive; hence one should not differentiate precedence in time as to which is right and which is wrong, for whenever two such reasons occur, both are inconclusive. Ancient thinkers judged: like playing a game of go to a slow kill, the one who plays last wins. If so, sound being strong, the Vaiśeṣika should lose. However, the Nyāyamukha, in judging the arguments of the Śabdavāda and Vaiśeṣika, says: "Moreover, in this case, the force of perception and scripture is superior; hence one should rely on this to seek a determination." That [treatise] states that these two reasons are both inconclusive, yet it judges that the Śabdavādin first establishes the permanence of sound with the reason of audibility, and the Vaiśeṣika subsequently states the reason of being produced, saying sound is impermanent; it could be like playing go to a slow kill, where playing first loses and playing second wins. But now this contradicts that precedence, so it should not be so.