因明入正理論疏 2.72

2.72

問：「且如大師周遊西域，學滿將還，時戒日王王五印度，為設十八日無遮大會，令大師立義，遍諸天竺，簡選賢良皆集會所。遣外道、小乘，競申論詰。大師立量，時人無敢對揚者。大師立唯識比量云：真故極成色，不離於眼識宗；自許初三攝，眼所不攝故因；猶如眼識喻。何故不犯世間相違？世間共說色離識故。」答：「凡因明法，所能立中若有簡別，便無過失。若自比量，以許言簡，顯自許之無他隨一等過。若他比量，汝執等言簡，無違宗等失。若共比量等，以勝義言簡，無違世間、自教等失。隨其所應，各有標簡。此比量中有所簡別，故無諸過。」

Question: "For instance, when the Great Master [Xuanzang] traveled through the Western Regions, finished his studies, and was about to return, King Śīlāditya ruled the five Indias and hosted an eighteen-day grand assembly without barriers for him, having the Great Master establish his thesis, gathering selected virtuous and eminent scholars from all over India at the assembly. He had non-Buddhists and Hīnayānists compete in presenting objections. The Great Master established an inference, and none of his contemporaries dared to dispute it. The Great Master established the Consciousness-Only inference, stating: 'In the ultimate sense, mutually recognized visible form does not exist apart from visual consciousness (proposition); because it is admitted by oneself to be subsumed under the first three [elements] and not subsumed under the visual organ (reason); like visual consciousness (example).' Why did this not commit the fallacy of contradicting worldly consensus? For the world commonly says that visible form exists apart from consciousness." Answer: "In the methods of hetuvidyā, whenever there is a qualification (viśeṣaṇa) in the probandum or probans, there is no fallacy. If it is an inference for oneself (svānumāna), using the word 'admitted' (abhyupagata) qualifies it, indicating that it is admitted by oneself, thereby avoiding faults such as unestablished for either party (anyatarāsiddha). If it is an inference for the other (parānumāna), words like 'asserted by you' qualify it, avoiding faults like contradicting one's own thesis. If it is a common inference (ubhayānumāna) and the like, qualifying it with the term 'in the ultimate sense' (paramārthataḥ) avoids faults such as contradicting worldly consensus, one's own doctrine, and so forth. Each has its appropriate explicit qualification. In this inference there was a qualification, and therefore it was free of all fallacies."