因明入正理論疏 2.71

2.71

The Commentary explains: Being subject to destruction and possessing the characteristic of flux is called "the world" (loka); falling within the world is called "in the midst" (antara). The Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "Because it emerges from the world, it is called the world. Because it makes the world, because of the world, for the sake of the world, through the cause of the world, belonging to the world, and relying upon the world, it is called the world," as expounded at length in the five-hundredth fascicle. This is of two kinds: First, non-scholastic worldly consensus: the things commonly accepted by the ordinary world, excluding scholars. Second, scholastic worldly consensus: that is, the gross phenomena known to noble beings. If it is profound and subtle Dharma, then it is not worldly. As for the first, non-scholastic worldly consensus: it is precisely what is stated here, that the moon is the hare-bearer, and that human crania are impure. Because everyone commonly knows that the moon contains a hare, the background for this is described as in the Records of the Western Regions. The world commonly knows that the cranium of a dead person is impure. If non-Buddhists, against a Buddhist, do not qualify the subject (dharmin), but merely assert broadly that the hare-bearer is not the moon, because of possessing an entity, like the sun, stars, and so forth: although the reason and the example are correct, the proposition contradicts worldly consensus; hence it is called a fallacy. However, the treatise gives only the proposition and the reason, without an example. The Nyāyamukha states: "Furthermore, if within it, on account of being uncommon (asādhāraṇa), there is no inference, and it is set aside by the contradictory meaning of commonly recognized speech—as in saying that the hare-bearer is not the moon, because of existence." The meaning of those words reveals: because it is not commonly known in the world, there is no sound principle that can establish an inference to make those who do not believe believe that the hare-bearer is not the moon; therefore it is a fallacy, perfectly identical to this. This treatise also says, "Like the Kāpālika non-Buddhists." This means "garland-wearers," who string human skulls together to wear as garland ornaments. When people criticized them, they established this inference: "A human cranium is pure (proposition); because of being part of a sentient being (reason); like a conch shell (example)." Although the proving reason and example are without fault, the proposition contradicts worldly consensus, which universally holds it to be impure; therefore it is a fault. Both of these belong to non-scholastic worldly consensus; they only involve contradicting common consensus, with no separate self or other. The text only mentions the total, but logically there should also be partial contradiction. If one were to say jointly that the hare-bearer is neither the sun nor the moon, only the part concerning the moon contradicts common worldly consensus, because it does not contradict the sun.