宗鏡錄 51.41

51.41

答。大乘眼根。望於眼識。非定即離。且非離者。根因識果。以同時故。即是非離也。又色心各別。名非即故。今但言非定不離。二犯法自相決定相違過者。言法自相者。即宗後陳法之自相。言決定相違者。即因違於宗也。外人申相違量云。真故極成色。是有法。非不離眼識宗。因云。初三攝故。喻如眼根。即外人將前量異喻為同喻。將同喻為異喻。

Answer: In the Mahāyāna, the visual organ in relation to visual consciousness is neither definitely identical nor separate. First, as for being non-separate: the organ is the cause and the consciousness is the fruit; because they are simultaneous, they are non-separate. Moreover, because matter and mind are distinct, they are termed non-identical. Therefore, one merely says 'not definitely non-separate.' Second, regarding the fallacy of decisive contradiction with the intrinsic nature of the predicate: the 'intrinsic nature of the predicate' refers to the intrinsic nature of the property in the predicate-phrase of the thesis. 'Decisive contradiction' means that the reason contradicts the thesis. The opponent presents a counter-inference: 'In ultimate truth, universally established matter is the subject; it is not non-separate from visual consciousness is the thesis; because it is subsumed under the first three is the reason; like the visual organ is the example.' That is, the opponent takes the negative example of the previous inference as a positive example, and takes the positive example as a negative example.