因明義斷 1.9

1.9

有人云：古人解云，古因明師，或聲為宗、或無常為宗、或合為宗。乃至云相傳雖有此分別，理恐未然。所以知者？古師既有異說，應有論文。撿如實等，並無此文，何得異說者。其義云何？答亦不然。說古師非，誰言即指《瑜伽》等論？說為餘人。又不可云《瑜伽》等中不作是說。故今古同，不得言異古因明師。古因明師，豈但《瑜伽》等？諸釋因明者，名為古因明師故。故《理門》云「又於負處，舊因明師諸有所說，或有墮在能破中攝、或有極麁、或有非理如詭語類，故此不錄。」又云「又此方隅，我於破古因明論中已具分別。」故知有古師說非者即破之，不言《瑜伽》等。

Someone says: An ancient person explained that ancient masters of hetuvidyā took either sound to be the pratijñā, or impermanence to be the pratijñā, or the combination to be the pratijñā. Down to saying: Although this distinction has been handed down traditionally, in principle I fear it is not so. How is this known? Since the ancient masters had different explanations, there should be texts in the treatises. Examining the *Tarkaśāstra* and so on, there is entirely no such text; how could there be different explanations? How is this meaning to be understood? Answer: This too is not so. In stating that the ancient masters were mistaken, who said it pointed directly to treatises such as the *Yogācārabhūmi*? It was stated of other individuals. Furthermore, one cannot say that treatises such as the *Yogācārabhūmi* do not make this statement, so that the present and ancient are identical, and one cannot speak of differing ancient masters of hetuvidyā. Could "ancient masters of hetuvidyā" refer only to the *Yogācārabhūmi* and the like? All who commented on hetuvidyā were called "ancient masters of hetuvidyā". Therefore the *Nyāyamukha* says: "Furthermore, regarding points of defeat (nigrahasthāna), among the various things stated by former masters of hetuvidyā, some fall under the category of dūṣaṇa, some are extremely coarse, and some are unreasonable like sophistries; therefore these are not recorded here." It also says: "Furthermore, I have already differentiated this approach fully in the treatise refuting ancient hetuvidyā." Therefore we know that where ancient masters stated errors, he refuted them; he was not speaking of the *Yogācārabhūmi* and the like.