因明義斷 1.30

1.30

有釋不成因過中云：繩輪咽臍所作，不應分別，並極成因。他亦顯生俱所作，二俱所作並為因。其義云何？答：此難不然。所作名生，所顯非生，何得二因俱名成作？又引《廣百論》第一云「又無常因，有不成過。就生滅義，自宗不成。隱顯義釋，他宗不成」者，待撿彼文。

There is an explanation of the fallacy of the asiddha-hetu stating: 'Being produced by cord, wheel, and clay-collar should not be differentiated; both are prasiddha hetus. For the other party also, being manifested and being produced are both "made"; both being "made" equally serve as the hetu.' What is the meaning of this? Answer: This objection is incorrect. That which is produced is called born; that which is manifested is not born. How could both hetus equally be called accomplished "making"? Furthermore, regarding the citation of the first fascicle of the Śatakaśāstravaiyāpulyavyākhyā: 'Moreover, the hetu "impermanent" has the fallacy of being asiddha. In terms of arising and ceasing, it is asiddha for one's own school; explained in terms of concealment and manifestation, it is asiddha for the other school'—this requires examining that text.