宗鏡錄 51.45

51.45

答。亦非。夫決定相違不定過。立敵共諍一有法。因喻各異。皆具三相。遍是宗法性。同品定有性。異品遍無性。但互不生其正智。兩家猶預不能定成一宗。名決定相違不定過。今真故極。成色。雖是共諍一有法。因且是共。又各闕第三相。故非決定相違不定過。

Answer: It is not that either. In the inconclusive fallacy of decisive contradiction, the proponent and opponent dispute a single subject, but the reasons and examples are distinct, both possessing the three marks: presence in the subject of the thesis (pakṣadharmatva), definite presence in similar instances (sapakṣe sattvam), and complete absence from dissimilar instances (vipakṣe 'sattvam). Yet neither generates correct cognition against the other; both parties are left in hesitation and unable to definitively establish either thesis; this is called the inconclusive fallacy of decisive contradiction. Now, although "In ultimate truth, universally established matter" is a single subject under shared dispute, the reason is shared, and moreover, both lack the third mark; therefore, it is not the inconclusive fallacy of decisive contradiction.