因明入正理論疏 2.72

2.72

Question: "For instance, when the Great Master [Xuanzang] traveled through the Western Regions, finished his studies, and was about to return, King Śīlāditya ruled the five Indias and hosted an eighteen-day grand assembly without barriers for him, having the Great Master establish his thesis, gathering selected virtuous and eminent scholars from all over India at the assembly. He had non-Buddhists and Hīnayānists compete in presenting objections. The Great Master established an inference, and none of his contemporaries dared to dispute it. The Great Master established the Consciousness-Only inference, stating: 'In the ultimate sense, mutually recognized visible form does not exist apart from visual consciousness (proposition); because it is admitted by oneself to be subsumed under the first three [elements] and not subsumed under the visual organ (reason); like visual consciousness (example).' Why did this not commit the fallacy of contradicting worldly consensus? For the world commonly says that visible form exists apart from consciousness." Answer: "In the methods of hetuvidyā, whenever there is a qualification (viśeṣaṇa) in the probandum or probans, there is no fallacy. If it is an inference for oneself (svānumāna), using the word 'admitted' (abhyupagata) qualifies it, indicating that it is admitted by oneself, thereby avoiding faults such as unestablished for either party (anyatarāsiddha). If it is an inference for the other (parānumāna), words like 'asserted by you' qualify it, avoiding faults like contradicting one's own thesis. If it is a common inference (ubhayānumāna) and the like, qualifying it with the term 'in the ultimate sense' (paramārthataḥ) avoids faults such as contradicting worldly consensus, one's own doctrine, and so forth. Each has its appropriate explicit qualification. In this inference there was a qualification, and therefore it was free of all fallacies."