因明義斷 1.44

1.44

有唯犯自他不共非共，如大乘對小乘云：極成之聲定是識變，以是共許攝故因。此亦不然，望自望他許共攝因於宗非有，以各自許非共許故，是不成因，非不定因。若云雖是不成亦犯不定。若爾，即是有是不成亦不定，不得唯犯自他不共。犯三之中，佛弟子對數論云：聲識變，所聞性因。此亦不然。此是共他，不是自故，以自變色等許成智聞故。復判不定中句雖有八，過但有四；犯他非自俱、犯自非他俱、犯自他非俱、三俱不犯，此四句非過，如前解釋。此是共量，唯三不犯決定非過，可如所判。餘判非過，理亦如前。

There is [a case that] incurs an asādhāraṇa only for oneself and the other, and not a universally common one. For example, when the Mahāyāna says to the Hīnayāna: "Prasiddha sound is definitely transformed by consciousness; because of being subsumed under what is mutually accepted (hetu)." This too is not so. In relation to oneself and in relation to the other, the reason "accepted as subsumed under what is mutually accepted" does not exist in the proposition, because each accepts it on its own and not mutually; thus it is an asiddha reason, not an anaikāntika reason. If one says: "Although it is asiddha, it also incurs anaikāntika"—if so, then it is both asiddha and anaikāntika, and cannot be exclusively an asādhāraṇa for oneself and the other. Among cases incurring all three: when a Buddhist says to a Sāṃkhya: "Sound is transformed by consciousness; because of being audible (hetu)." This too is not so. This is [incurred by] both the other and the common, not by oneself alone, because form and the like transformed by oneself are accepted as heard by the knowledge of fulfillment [kṛtyanuṣṭhānajñāna]. Furthermore, within the analysis of the anaikāntika, although there are eight clauses, there are only four fallacies: incurring [a flaw for] the other and not for oneself or both; incurring [a flaw for] oneself and not for the other or both; incurring [a flaw for] oneself and the other and not both; and incurring none of the three. These four clauses are not fallacies, as explained before. Since this is a common inference (ubhayānumāna), only incurring none of the three is definitely without fallacy, which can be as judged. As for the rest being judged non-fallacious, the principle is also as [refuted] before.