因明入正理論疏 2.185

2.185

又彼外難所聞性因，若對有聲，性應正因。論主非之，令依現、教。現謂世間，見聲間斷，有時不聞，眾緣力起。教謂佛教，說聲無常，佛於說教最為勝故。由此二義，勝論義勝。又釋迦佛現證諸法，見聲無常，依現說教，教說無常。故勝論先，不應依於外道常教。又諸外道不許佛勝者，應依世間現有至實可信之說，聲逢緣有，暫有還無，世可信者所共說教。故勝論先，聲論墮負。彼且斷於聲、勝二義，聲負勝先，非諸決定相違，皆先負後勝。若爾，便決定云何名不定？由此論主恐謂一切決定相違皆後為勝，故結之云「二俱不定」。此亦有三：如大乘破薩婆多云：「汝無表色定非實色，許無對故，如心心所。」彼立量云：「我無對色定是實色，許色性故，如許色聲等。」此他比量相違決定，初是他比，後必自比。若立自比對他比，名自比量相違決定，無二自他。若二自他，俱真立破，非似立故。如大乘立前破無表比量，小乘對云：「大乘無表定有實色，許非極微等是無對色故，如許定果色。」此非相違決定，俱真能立、真能破故。由此立敵共申一有法，諍此法等方是此故。若先立自義、後他方破，即是自比相違決定。如論所說有共相違決定之過，是名為三。

Moreover, as for the opponent's objection that if the hetu 'being audible' is stated against [those who hold] the existence of sound, its nature would be a valid hetu: the author of the śāstra refutes this, bidding [one] to rely on direct perception and authoritative teaching. 'Direct perception' means that in the world, one observes sound to be interrupted, at times not heard, and produced by the power of multiple conditions. 'Authoritative teaching' means the Buddhist teaching, which states that sound is impermanent, because the Buddha is supreme in propounding teachings. On account of these two meanings, the Vaiśeṣika's position is superior. Furthermore, Śākyamuni Buddha directly realized all dharmas and saw that sound is impermanent; relying on direct perception he propounded the teaching, and the teaching states that [sound] is impermanent. Therefore, the Vaiśeṣika comes first, and one should not rely on the non-Buddhists' teaching of permanence. Furthermore, as for those non-Buddhists who do not accept the Buddha as supreme: one should rely on the genuinely credible statements existing in the world by direct observation—that sound exists upon meeting conditions, and after existing temporarily, ceases to exist—which is the authoritative teaching commonly stated by trustworthy persons in the world. Therefore, the Vaiśeṣika comes first, and the Śabdavāda is defeated. He was merely deciding between the two doctrines of Śabda and Vaiśeṣika, that the Śabdavāda is defeated and the Vaiśeṣika comes first; it is not that among all viruddha-avyabhicārin cases, the earlier is always defeated and the later always victorious. If that were so, it would be determined [as decisive]; how then could it be called 'inconclusive' (anaikāntika)? For this reason, the author of the śāstra, fearing that people might think all viruddha-avyabhicārin cases are won by the latter, concluded by saying: 'Both are inconclusive.' There are also three types of this: for example, when the Mahāyāna refutes the Sarvāstivādin, saying: 'Your unmanifest form (avijñapti-rūpa) is definitely not real form; because it is accepted to be non-obstructive; like the mind and mental factors.' The other establishes an anumāna, saying: 'My non-obstructive form is definitely real form; because it is accepted to be of the nature of form; like accepted visible forms, sounds, and so forth.' This is a viruddha-avyabhicārin of parānumāna; the first is an anumāna for the other, and the second must be an anumāna for oneself. If one establishes a svānumāna against a parānumāna, it is called a viruddha-avyabhicārin of svānumāna; there are no two purely for oneself or purely for the other. If both were for oneself or both for the other, both would be genuine proofs and refutations, not fallacious proofs. For example, when the Mahāyāna establishes the aforementioned anumāna refuting unmanifest form, and the Hīnayāna responds, saying: 'The Mahāyāna unmanifest form definitely has real form; because it is accepted that that which is not atoms and so forth is non-obstructive form; like accepted meditative-attainment-born form (dhyāna-phala-rūpa).' This is not viruddha-avyabhicārin, because both are genuine sādhanas and genuine dūṣaṇas. It is only when the proponent and the opponent together set forth the single same dharmin and dispute this dharma, and so forth, that it constitutes this [fallacy]. If one first establishes one's own position and the other later refutes it, that is a viruddha-avyabhicārin of svānumāna. As the śāstra states, there is the fault of ubhaya-viruddha-avyabhicārin. These are called the three types.