因明義斷 1.31

1.31

有解不成，總料簡中云：兩俱隨一。既對立敵以辯，不得更約自他等辯句也。此義如何？此亦不爾。如俱不成，無約自他分別之者，可如所說。隨一之中，何故不得約自他辯？隨一言通，但言全分一分隨一不成，為隨敵不成？為隨立不成？既有立敵二殊，約自約他極妙猶豫所依過亦准此。不得苟乖前哲，置此迷辭。

Someone, explaining asiddha, says in a general analysis: 'Both and either-one (anyatara). Since these are distinguished in confrontation between proponent and opponent, one must not further distinguish alternatives based on self, other, and so forth.' What about this meaning? This too is not so. As with ubhayāsiddha, where no one distinguishes it in terms of self and other, it can be as they say. But within anyatara, why could one not distinguish it in terms of self and other? The term 'anyatara' is broad: when speaking simply of complete or partial anyatarāsiddha, is it asiddha according to the opponent, or asiddha according to the proponent? Since there is the distinction between proponent and opponent, distinguishing by self and by other is extremely subtle; fallacies of doubt and locus (āśraya) should also follow this. One must not arbitrarily contradict earlier scholars and leave behind such confusing words.