因明義斷 1.41

1.41

有人云：有唯犯他不共，非自共不共。云如小乘對大乘云：極成之聲非是唯識所變之聲，宗；是有漏性故，因；以色等為共同品，因於遍有，無共異品。菩薩不善色等為自同品，因亦遍有，無自異品。他許他方佛色聲為他同異品，因遍無故，唯他不共者。其義云何？答：亦不應理，過失准前。獄卒等聲為共異品，因於彼轉，成共不定因。若此聲在有法，即違宗過，何名不共？又有漏故，因亦他一分不成之過，何得但是唯他不共？亦有他不成，如此方佛聲極成所攝，大乘不許是有漏故。若大眾部等立此量者，因俱一分不成，不得言唯他不共。

Someone says: There is [a case that] incurs an asādhāraṇa only for the other, and is not asādhāraṇa for oneself or universally. For example, when the Hīnayāna says to the Mahāyāna: "Prasiddha sound is not sound transformed by consciousness alone (pratijñā); because of being of a defiled nature (hetu)." Taking form and the like as the common sapakṣa, the reason is completely present in them, and there is no common vipakṣa. The unwholesome form and the like of a bodhisattva are one's own sapakṣa, where the reason is also completely present, and there is no vipakṣa of one's own. The other school accepts the form and sound of Buddhas of other directions as the sapakṣa and vipakṣa of the other, where the reason is completely absent; hence it is asādhāraṇa only for the other. What is the meaning of this? Answer: This is also unreasonable; the fallacies follow the previous pattern. Sounds of hell wardens and the like are the common vipakṣa; the reason applies to them, becoming a sādhāraṇa-anaikāntika reason. If this sound is placed in the dharmin, that is the fallacy of contradicting one's own proposition; how could it be called asādhāraṇa? Furthermore, the reason "because of being defiled" also incurs the fallacy of being partially unestablished for the other (parabhāgāsiddha); how could it be merely an asādhāraṇa only for the other? There is also an asiddha for the other, as the sound of the Buddha of this world is subsumed under the prasiddha, and the Mahāyāna does not accept that it is defiled. If the Mahāsāṃghika and others set up this inference, the reason is universally partially unestablished (ubhayabhāgāsiddha); one cannot say it is asādhāraṇa only for the other.