因明入正理論疏 2.96

2.96

復有自兩俱不成非他，如佛弟子對勝論師立「我以為和合因緣」。有他兩俱不成非自，如勝論師對佛弟子立於此義。有俱兩俱不成，如薩婆多對大乘者立於此義。有俱非自他兩俱不成，如無過宗。初三皆過，第四非過。上來合說五種全句；一一離之，復為一分，成五別句。復將自能別一分不成等句對餘全句，復將全能別不成等句對餘一分句，皆理定有。隨其所應，諸兩俱過，皆名兩俱不極成，諸自、他過皆名隨一不極成。由此亦兩俱、隨一、猶預、全分、一分等過，能、所別中俱生疑故。論中且說隨他一全分俱不極成，以示其法，餘應准知。

Furthermore, there is that which is both [the qualificand and the qualifier] unestablished for oneself but not for the other: as when a Buddhist disciple, confronting a Vaiśeṣika, posits that “the self is the cause-and-condition of combination.” There is that which is both unestablished for the other but not for oneself: as when a Vaiśeṣika posits this proposition confronting a Buddhist disciple. There is that which is both unestablished for both: as when a Sarvāstivādin posits this proposition confronting a Mahāyānist. There is that where neither is both unestablished for oneself nor for the other: as in a faultless thesis (pratijñā). The first three are all fallacious; the fourth is not fallacious. The above has comprehensively expounded five kinds of total clauses; taking them individually apart, each again becomes partial, forming five separate clauses. Furthermore, combining clauses such as the partial unestablishedness of one's own qualifier against the remaining total clauses, and combining clauses such as the total unestablishedness of the qualifier against the remaining partial clauses, all these are logically bound to exist. In accordance with what applies: all fallacies concerning both parties are called "unestablished for both" (ubhayāsiddha); all fallacies concerning oneself or the other are called "unestablished for either" (anyatarāsiddha). In this way, there are also fallacies such as both, either, doubtful, total, and partial, because doubt arises regarding both the qualifier and the qualificand. In the treatise, it provisionally states only the total unestablishedness for both regarding either [the qualifier or the qualificand] in order to illustrate the method; the rest should be understood by analogy.