因明入正理論疏 1.31

1.31

Fourth is fallacious refutation (dūṣaṇābhāsa): when the opponent's argument is complete, to censure and cross-examine it falsely, generating faults in what one presents, is therefore called fallacious refutation. (This has two aspects: first, when the opponent's argument is without fault, falsely censuring it with the fourteen kinds of sophistical refutations (jāti) and so forth; second, when one's own argument has faults yet one considers it to refute the other, falsely speaking and considering oneself victorious; hence it is called fallacious refutation.) The word "and" (yu) in the text indicates that the multiple entities are mutually distinct (proof and refutation, true and fallacious, differ in their entity and meaning; using the word "and" shows that their entities are mutually distinct). Putting the words "as well as their fallacies" shows that faults apply commonly to both proof and refutation (indicating that the preceding valid proof has fallacious proof, and also showing that valid refutation has fallacious refutation. Adducing the true and coordinating the fallacious, it therefore says "as well as"). The meanings of the theses are each fixed (what was originally understood), but whether they are erroneous or correct is difficult to know (because they are not yet mutually accepted). Since the grounds and analogies are made manifest (from the reason grounds and from the example analogies; "made manifest" means revealed), right and wrong thereupon become evident (when the thesis is accomplished, it is "right"; when not accomplished, it is "wrong". "Evident" means clarified; through the arising of true and fallacious words, the right and wrong of the thesis are understood). When the victory or defeat is accomplished, both sides are fully clear (valid proof and valid refutation proceed from one's own speech; when success achieves victory, both witness and opponent understand; with fallacious proof and fallacious refutation, one's own effort results in defeat; through the other's pointing it out, both witness and proponent are clarified), and therefore, in the majority of cases, both enlighten others. The Nyāyamukha says: "According to what is appropriate, for the sake of enlightening others, one expounds this valid proof and fallacious proof." Valid proof enlightens the opponent and the witness, because by uttering words oneself, understanding is generated in others. Fallacious proof enlightens the witness and the proponent himself, because through the other exposing oneself, understanding arises in oneself and the witness; therefore it says "according to what is appropriate". Valid refutation and fallacious refutation should be known by analogy to be likewise. In the subsequent text of this treatise, valid proof and valid refutation are both able to enlighten others, while fallacious proof and fallacious refutation cannot enlighten others, which accords directly with that. Therefore, in this verse, relying on the fact that in the majority of cases they enlighten the witness, it says "solely enlighten others", and does not say "enlighten oneself". Furthermore, true proof and refutation solely enlighten others; and though the fallacious also [enlighten] oneself, following the true, it is termed "solely".