因明入正理論疏 3.95

3.95

問：「前二偏無，何故不開有無二耶？」答：「雙無既開，顯偏亦爾；偏既不立，俱無亦然，以影略故。無俱不成亦有兩俱、隨一、猶預及所依不成。兩俱無俱不成，如聲論師對勝論立聲常宗，所聞性故，如第八識。二俱不立，有第八識故。隨一無俱不成者，如聲論師對大乘者立此比量，彼自不許有第八識故，是自隨一。舉喻如空，對無空論，即他隨一。猶預無俱不成者，既無喻依，決無二立。疑決既不異分，故闕此句。所依不成，若說依喻，即前說是，皆無喻依故。說依宗、因，即前四句第四句是，於中復有兩俱、隨一，全分、一分，恐繁不述。」

Question: "The previous two are one-sidedly absent; why are existent and non-existent not opened up [as two distinct kinds there]?" Answer: "Since the absence of both is opened up, it indicates that one-sided [absence] is also like this; since one-sided [absence] is not established, the absence of both is also like that, through contextual implication. 'Non-existent both unestablished' also has 'both,' 'either,' 'doubtful,' and 'substratum unestablished.' 'Both non-existent both unestablished' is like when a Śabda philosopher establishes against a Vaiśeṣika the thesis that 'sound is permanent, because it is audible, like the eighth consciousness.' Both do not accept that the eighth consciousness exists. 'Either non-existent both unestablished' is like when a Śabda philosopher establishes this inference against a Mahāyānist, since he himself does not accept that the eighth consciousness exists, which is 'self-either.' Adducing an example like empty space against one who maintains that empty space does not exist is 'other-either.' As for 'doubtful non-existent both unestablished'—since there is no substratum for the example, there is definitely no establishment of the two. Since doubt and certainty do not have different shares, this permutation is lacking. As for 'substratum unestablished'—if one speaks of relying on the example, it is just what was said before, because all lack a substratum for the example. If one speaks of relying on the thesis and the reason, it is the fourth permutation among the previous four permutations, within which there are again 'both,' 'either,' 'whole,' and 'partial'; for fear of prolixity it is not set forth."