因明入正理論疏 2.80

2.80

The commentary states: The bases on which a thesis relies are the property (dharma) and the subject (dharmin). The subject is the substance, and the property is its meaning; when the meaning relies on that substance without conflict, they can be established in mutual harmony. Now, saying 'my mother' makes it clear that there is a child; then saying 'a barren woman' makes it clear that there is definitely no child. The substance 'my mother' and the meaning 'barren woman'—the subject and the property—do not support each other. Since one's own words are already self-contradictory, what can one establish before an opponent? Hence it is a fault. 'Barren woman' (śikhi-strī / vandhyā), if accurately translated, should be 'empty woman' (xūnǚ); here we follow the old translation and retain the name 'stone woman' (shínǚ). The Nyāyamukha states: 'Like stating that all words are false.' That is, a non-Buddhist asserted that all words are false. Diṅnāga objected: 'If, as you say, all words are false, then your words correspond to the real fact and, since they are not false, are partially true, which contradicts the word 'all' in the subject. If your words are themselves false while other words are not false, then you are now speaking falsely, making what is not false into what is false: your words being false themselves while others' words are not false contradicts the thesis-property that 'all are false.' Hence it is called contradicting one's own words.'