因明義斷 1.8

1.8

有人云：如立量破他，宗因喻三俱為能破。立量為申正義，何故獨簡其宗？其義如何？答：此亦不例。如破他中有出過、立量二破，豈可能立亦令立量、出過二立？又破他出過，隨一一支皆成能破；豈可量立，隨一一支皆成能立？又立量明宗，通能所立；豈立量破宗，通能所破？又復誰言能破亦復通宗？因喻定故，可能破他。宗他不許，何成能破？故《理門》云「唯有共許決定言詞，說名能立、或名能破。非互不成猶豫言詞，復待成故。」又過類中，名似能破。據立量中，是因喻過。翻此能破，故但因喻立宗。雖為破他，無因他宗不破，故但因喻。《唯識》第十四出其宗非，似出過破，不是立量。故無立量破他，亦名宗為能破。准此還是例於能立，但應因喻。

Someone asks: When positing an anumāna to refute an opponent, all three—pratijñā, hetu, and udāharaṇa—are refutations (dūṣaṇa). Positing an anumāna is to state the correct principle; why single out the pratijñā alone for exclusion? How is this meaning to be understood? Answer: This is also not parallel. Just as in refuting an opponent there are two kinds of refutation—pointing out doṣa and positing an anumāna—could it be that in sādhana one also makes two kinds of proof: positing an anumāna and pointing out doṣa? Furthermore, when refuting an opponent by pointing out doṣa, any single member constitutes a dūṣaṇa; could it be that in positing an anumāna, any single member constitutes a sādhana? Furthermore, positing an anumāna clarifies that the pratijñā applies to both sādhana and sādhya; could it be that in positing an anumāna to refute, the pratijñā applies to both dūṣaṇa and dūṣya? Moreover, who says that dūṣaṇa also applies to the pratijñā? Because the hetu and udāharaṇa are definitive, they are able to refute the other. The pratijñā is not accepted by the other; how could it constitute a dūṣaṇa? Therefore the *Nyāyamukha* says: "Only words that are mutually accepted and definitive are called sādhana or called dūṣaṇa; words that are mutually unestablished or doubtful are not, because they still await establishment." Furthermore, among the varieties of doṣa, there is what is called a semblance of a dūṣaṇa (dūṣaṇābhāsa). When positing an anumāna, these are doṣa of the hetu and udāharaṇa. Flipping this to real dūṣaṇa, it is therefore only the hetu and udāharaṇa that establish the pratijñā. Although it is to refute the other, without a hetu the other's pratijñā is not refuted; therefore it is only the hetu and udāharaṇa. Fascicle fourteen of the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* points out the errors in their pratijñā, which resembles refutation by pointing out doṣa, not positing an anumāna. Therefore there is no positing of an anumāna to refute an opponent that also designates the pratijñā as a dūṣaṇa. Based on this, it is still parallel to the sādhana: it should only be the hetu and udāharaṇa.