因明入正理論疏 2.80

2.80

述曰：宗之所依，謂法有法。有法是體，法是其義，義依彼體，不相乖角，可相順立。今言我母，明知有子，復言石女，明委無兒，我母之體與石女義，有法及法不相依順。自言既已乖反，對敵何所申立？故為過也。石女，正翻應為虛女，今順古譯存石女名。《理門論》云：「如立一切言皆是妄。」謂有外道立一切言皆是虛妄。陳那難言：「若如汝說諸言皆妄，則汝所言稱可實事，既非是妄，一分實故，便違有法一切之言。若汝所言自是虛妄，餘言不妄，汝今妄說，非妄作妄，汝語自妄，他語不妄，便違宗法言皆是妄。故名自語相違。」

The commentary states: The bases on which a thesis relies are the property (dharma) and the subject (dharmin). The subject is the substance, and the property is its meaning; when the meaning relies on that substance without conflict, they can be established in mutual harmony. Now, saying 'my mother' makes it clear that there is a child; then saying 'a barren woman' makes it clear that there is definitely no child. The substance 'my mother' and the meaning 'barren woman'—the subject and the property—do not support each other. Since one's own words are already self-contradictory, what can one establish before an opponent? Hence it is a fault. 'Barren woman' (śikhi-strī / vandhyā), if accurately translated, should be 'empty woman' (xūnǚ); here we follow the old translation and retain the name 'stone woman' (shínǚ). The Nyāyamukha states: 'Like stating that all words are false.' That is, a non-Buddhist asserted that all words are false. Diṅnāga objected: 'If, as you say, all words are false, then your words correspond to the real fact and, since they are not false, are partially true, which contradicts the word 'all' in the subject. If your words are themselves false while other words are not false, then you are now speaking falsely, making what is not false into what is false: your words being false themselves while others' words are not false contradicts the thesis-property that 'all are false.' Hence it is called contradicting one's own words.'