宗鏡錄 51.35

51.35

答。有二過。一不定過。二違自教過。且不定過者。若立量云。真故極成色。定不離眼識。因云眼所不攝。喻如眼識。即眼所不攝因闊。向異喻後五三上轉。皆是眼所不攝故。被外人出不定過云。為如眼識眼所不攝。眼識不離眼識。證極成色不離眼識耶。為如後五三亦是眼所不攝。後五三定離眼識。却證汝極成色定離眼識耶。

Answer: There would be two fallacies: first, the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika); second, the fallacy of contradicting one's own teaching (āgama-virodha). As for the fallacy of inconclusiveness: if the inference were formulated: "In ultimate truth, universally established matter is definitely not separate from visual consciousness, because it is not subsumed under the eye, like visual consciousness," then the reason "not subsumed under the eye" would be too broad, applying over the subsequent five sets of three in the negative examples (vipakṣa), as all are not subsumed under the eye. The opponent would point out the fallacy of inconclusiveness, saying: "Does [the reason] prove that universally established matter is not separate from visual consciousness like visual consciousness, which is not subsumed under the eye and is not separate from visual consciousness? Or does it, conversely, prove that your universally established matter is definitely separate from visual consciousness like the subsequent five sets of three, which are also not subsumed under the eye and are definitely separate from visual consciousness?"'