翻刻
【右頁】
【枠外右上】
三九〇【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第六
【枠外右横下】
四二
【二段構成】
【上段】
【大字】
因明大疏私抄《割書：[中卷之中]》
【大字終わり】
【二字下げ】
簡相違者等下
【字下げ終わり】
卽此所言月是懷兎等者。見＿二西域記第七＿一。帝釋感＿二兎之
捨身＿一寄＿二之月輪＿一轉＿二後人＿一《割書：云云》。《割書：此因緣如＿レ｜常。取＿レ要。》今世云＿二月中有＿一レ
兎者。由＿二此傳來＿一也。 尋云。見＿二疏文＿一。月卽爲＿二懷兎＿一《割書：見タリ》。
月中￣ニ有￣ラバ者。何云＿二月是懷兎＿一耶。又懷者其義如何。
答。集記引＿二有抄＿一云。懷兎者藏也。義意記＿二月中有＿一レ兎也
《割書：云云》。依＿二此意＿一者。懷字藏義也。月中攝＿二藏兎＿一故。月名＿二懷
兎＿一也。月懷＿レ兎之物故。若爾。疏月是懷兎云文。其旨分
明也。此事猶有＿二異釋＿一。且記＿二 一義＿一了。
唯識比量淸辨比量沙汰如＿二別紙＿一
【二字下げ】
自語相違者等下
【字下げ終わり】
如言一切言皆是妄等者。明燈抄。以＿二此量＿一爲＿二 一分自語
相違＿一《割書：云云。｜取心。》付＿レ之有＿レ疑。此量￣ハ直皆是妄￣ノ能別￣イ。違＿二有法
一切言體＿一故。以＿二此分＿一爲＿二自語相違＿一也。隨＿二皆是妄言陳
虛實＿一。與＿二 一切言有法＿一可＿二相違＿一故。若爾者。是全分自語
【下段】
相違也。何釋＿二 一分＿一耶。是以次下文。作＿二分全二箇四句＿一之
中。以＿二今量＿一卽攝＿二全分句＿一。明燈抄不望《割書：考【四角で囲む】望｜恐審》也。如何。答。
實如＿二所難＿一。但彼抄意。隨＿二今所言虛實＿一。有法一切言之語
中。旣通有＿二妄非妄言＿一故。皆是妄能別違＿二有法＿一。此過出
來故。指＿二此底＿一釋＿二 一分過＿一歟。又可＿レ案＿レ之。
尋云。疏所＿レ出自語相違二種四句。皆只是自敎相違作
法也。何又爲＿二自語相違＿一耶。 答。今疏四句文。引＿二￣テ璧
法師文＿一。疏主同＿レ￣ズルナリ此￣ニ也。而賓師破＿二璧法師＿一之旨。卽疑
難之趣也。明燈抄引＿二此由來＿一。救＿二賓師難＿一之意云。且順
世宗。四大實有四尺《割書：考【四角で囲む】尺恐｜大字》也。此乃彼宗所＿レ師可信言敎
也。故四大擧＿二實有＿一云事不＿レ待＿レ言。卽是立＿二無實＿一。是非＿レ違＿二
自語＿一耶。彼宗四大者。卽表＿レ實之言故。故以＿レ違＿二自敎自語＿一。
亦爲＿二此失＿一也《割書：爲言》。此旨卽疏文炳然也。亦兩俱隨一全
分猶豫等者。於＿二自語相違＿一。有＿二決定自語相違＿一。有＿二猶豫
自語相違＿一。決定者。常自語相違也。如＿二 上釋了＿一。猶豫者。
如＿レ立＿二煙雲不定處可＿一レ有＿レ火等也。此又有＿二諸句＿一。自全分
猶豫自語相違。他全分自語相違。《割書：疏云隨一｜者是也。》
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
三九一【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
因明大疏私抄卷第六
【枠外左横下】
四三
【二段構成】
【上段】
兩俱全分自語相違《割書：疏云兩俱｜者是也》也。是疏擧分齊也。義准又
可＿レ有＿二 三種一分過＿一也。卽是裏書等趣也。
【二字下げ】
所別不極成者等下
【字下げ終わり】
問若說我是思《割書：乃至》便無過故不爾便成者。先此問者。付＿下
上云＿中我是無常等量。標＿二簡別言＿一之時便無＿上レ爽。此疑來
也。 問意云。如＿下共比量置＿二勝義言＿一。簡＿中世間相違＿上等者。
其事可＿レ然。宗依共許故。如＿二今說我是思量＿一者。旣爲＿二所
別言不成＿一了。如何置＿二簡別言＿一。立＿二神我＿一爲＿レ有哉。設置＿二簡
別＿一。宗依不＿二共許＿一故。不＿レ可＿レ遁＿レ過。置＿二簡別＿一之時。總皆無＿レ
失云事。不＿レ可＿レ然《割書：爲言》。答意云。自比他比。宗依雖＿レ不＿二共
許＿一。彼亦置＿二簡別言＿一畢。便無＿レ過也。今我有法。若外道所
立者。可＿レ置＿二我說言＿一。若佛法所立者。可＿レ置＿二汝執言＿一。謂￣ク
且我說簡別言。必有＿二所目＿一。如＿三色等言必有＿二所目＿一。故須＿二此
言＿一時便無＿レ過也。若不＿レ爾者便成＿レ過《割書：爲言》。仍疏云。謂＿二我
能詮＿一者。非＿二神我＿一。自許之義也。卽吾之義也。是簡別言
之事也。又云＿二不爾便成＿一者。不＿レ爾者便成＿レ過《割書：爲言》。又問
中云＿二我等爲有＿一者。是神我也。《割書：已上明燈抄｜等意也。》 上二過中初
【下段】
過《割書：乃至》後過者。付＿二論文前後＿一。不＿レ云＿二初過後過＿一也。前陳
云＿二初過＿一。後陳云＿二後過＿一也。仍所別不成能別不成。如＿レ次
有＿二所依不成能依不成名＿一也。 由是所立不與能依等者。
是由＿下 上擧＿二宗依所依能依名＿一了＿上。隣＿レ之所立不相離性宗
體。無＿二此名＿一云事也。
【二字下げ】
俱不極成者等下
【字下げ終わり】
有俱能別不成俱非所別《割書：乃至》能別不成中全俱非句是
者。 尋云。今所＿レ指者。能別不成全四句中。第三句也【。脱ヵ】
而彼俱能別不成之句也。旣是俱句也。全非＿二俱非句＿一。今
何云＿二俱非句＿一耶。 答。於＿二能別不成＿一。非＿二自他不成￣ヲ＿一。是常
非俱句相也。而云＿二俱非＿一者。非＿二是義＿一歟。謂能別自他俱
不＿レ成也。故名＿レ俱。所別自他俱非＿二不成＿一。故名＿レ非。今合＿レ
之。云＿二俱非句＿一也。俱能別不成之句。所別定可＿二俱非不
成＿一故也。
有俱所別不成《割書：乃至》所別不成中全俱非句者。此俱非句者。
又可＿レ准＿レ前也。
【二字下げ】
上來三過皆證自相等下
【十一行目の[ ]は亀甲括弧】
現代語訳
【右頁】
390
因明大疏私抄巻第六
42
【上段】
因明大疏私抄【中巻之中】
「簡相違者等」以下
「即此所言月是懐兎」等について。西域記第七を見よ。帝釈が兎の捨身に感じて、これを月輪に寄せて後人に伝えた【云云】。【この因縁は常の如し。要を取る。】今世に月中に兎があると云うのは、この伝来によるものである。 尋ねて云う。疏文を見ると、月即ち懐兎となる【見たり】。月中にあるならば、何故月是懐兎と云うのか。また懐とはその義はどうか。答えて、集記が有る抄を引いて云う。懐兎とは蔵である。義意は月中に兎があることを記す【云云】。この意に依れば、懐の字は蔵の義である。月中に兎を摂蔵するから、月を懐兎と名づける。月が兎を懐く物だから。そうであれば、疏の月是懐兎という文の、その旨は分明である。この事にはなお異釈がある。とりあえず一義を記した。
唯識比量・清弁比量の沙汰は別紙の如し
「自語相違者等」以下
「如言一切言皆是妄」等について。明燈抄では、この量を一分自語相違とする【云云。取心。】これについて疑いがある。この量は直ちに皆是妄の能別が、有法一切言の体に違う故に、この分を自語相違とするのである。皆是妄言陳の虚実に随って、一切言有法と相違すべき故である。そうであれば、これは全分自語相違である。何故一分と釈すのか。これ以て次の下文で、分全二箇の四句を作る中で、今の量を即ち全分句に摂める。明燈抄は審らかでない【考：望は恐らく審】。どうか。答えて、実に難の如くである。ただ彼の抄の意では、今所言の虚実に随って、有法一切言の語中に、既に妄非妄言を通有する故に、皆是妄能別が有法に違う。この過が出来る故に、この底を指して一分過と釈すのであろうか。またこれを案ずべし。
尋ねて云う。疏の出す自語相違の二種四句は、皆ただこれ自教相違の作法である。何故また自語相違とするのか。 答えて、今疏の四句文は、璧法師の文を引いて、疏主はこれに同じない。而るに賓師が璧法師を破る旨が、即ち疑難の趣である。明燈抄がこの由来を引いて、賓師の難を救う意に云う。とりあえず順世宗では、四大実有四尺【考：尺は恐らく大字】である。これ乃ち彼宗の師とする可信の言教である。故に四大が実有を挙げると云う事は言を待たない。即ちこれ無実を立てる。これは自語に違うのではないか。彼宗の四大は、即ち実を表す言である故に。故に自教自語に違うことを以て、またこの失となる【為言】。この旨は即ち疏文に炳然である。また両俱随一全分猶豫等について。自語相違について、決定自語相違がある。猶豫自語相違がある。決定とは、常の自語相違である。上に釈し了る如し。猶豫とは、煙雲不定の処に火があり得ると立てる如し。これにまた諸句がある。自全分猶豫自語相違、他全分自語相違【疏に随一と云うのはこれである】
【下段】
両俱全分自語相違【疏に両俱と云うのはこれである】である。これは疏の挙げる分斉である。義准してまた三種一分過があるべきである。即ちこれは裏書等の趣である。
「所別不極成者等」以下
「問若説我是思」【乃至】「便無過故不爾便成者」について。先ずこの問は、上に云う我是無常等の量に付いて、簡別言を標する時に便ち爽う無し。この疑いが来るのである。 問の意に云う。共比量に勝義言を置いて、世間相違等を簡ぶ如くは、その事は然るべし。宗依が共許だから。今説我是思量と如くは、既に所別言不成となった。どうして簡別言を置いて、神我を立てて有とするのか。仮に簡別を置いても、宗依が共許でない故に、過を遁れることはできない。簡別を置く時に、総て皆失無しと云う事は、然るべからず【為言】。答の意に云う。自比他比では、宗依は共許でなくとも、彼もまた簡別言を置き畢んぬ。便ち過無しである。今我有法は、もし外道の所立ならば、我説言を置くべし。もし仏法の所立ならば、汝執言を置くべし。謂わば且つ我説簡別言は、必ず所目がある。色等言が必ず所目があるが如し。故にこの言を須いる時は便ち過無し。もし爾らざれば便ち過を成す【為言】。仍って疏に云う。我能詮と謂うは、神我に非ず。自許の義である。即ち吾の義である。これは簡別言の事である。また不爾便成と云うは、爾らざれば便ち過を成す【为言】。また問中に我等為有と云うは、これ神我である。【已上明燈抄等の意である】 上の二過中の初過
【乃至】後過について。論文の前後に付いて、初過後過と云わない。前陳を初過と云い、後陳を後過と云う。仍って所別不成能別不成は、次の如く所依不成能依不成の名がある。 由是所立不与能依等について。これは上に宗依所依能依の名を挙げ了るによって、これに隣る所立不相離性の宗体に、この名無しと云う事である。
「俱不極成者等」以下
「有俱能別不成俱非所別」【乃至】「能別不成中全俱非句是者」について。 尋ねて云う。今指す所は、能別不成全四句中の第三句である【。脱ヵ】而して彼は俱能別不成の句である。既にこれは俱句である。全く俱非句に非ず。今何故俱非句と云うのか。 答えて、能別不成について、自他不成に非ざるは、これ常に俱句の相に非ず。而して俱非と云うは、この義に非ざるか。謂わば能別は自他俱に成らず。故に俱と名づく。所別は自他俱に不成に非ず。故に非と名づく。今これを合わせて、俱非句と云う。俱能別不成の句は、所別は定んで俱非不成なるべき故である。
「有俱所別不成」【乃至】「所別不成中全俱非句者」について。この俱非句も、また前に准ずべし。
「上来三過皆証自相等」以下
【左頁】
391
因明大疏私抄巻第六
43
【上段】
両俱全分自語相違【疏に両俱と云うのはこれである】である。これは疏の挙げる分斉である。義准してまた三種一分過があるべきである。即ちこれは裏書等の趣である。
「所別不極成者等」以下
「問若説我是思」【乃至】「便無過故不爾便成者」について。先ずこの問は、上に云う我是無常等の量に付いて、簡別言を標する時に便ち爽う無し。この疑いが来るのである。 問の意に云う。共比量に勝義言を置いて、世間相違等を簡ぶ如くは、その事は然るべし。宗依が共許だから。今説我是思量と如くは、既に所別言不成となった。どうして簡別言を置いて、神我を立てて有とするのか。仮に簡別を置いても、宗依が共許でない故に、過を遁れることはできない。簡別を置く時に、総て皆失無しと云う事は、然るべからず【為言】。答の意に云う。自比他比では、宗依は共許でなくとも、彼もまた簡別言を置き畢んぬ。便ち過無しである。今我有法は、もし外道の所立ならば、我説言を置くべし。もし仏法の所立ならば、汝執言を置くべし。謂わば且つ我説簡別言は、必ず所目がある。色等言が必ず所目があるが如し。故にこの言を須いる時は便ち過無し。もし爾らざれば便ち過を成す【为言】。仍って疏に云う。我能詮と謂うは、神我に非ず。自許の義である。即ち吾の義である。これは簡別言の事である。また不爾便成と云うは、爾らざれば便ち過を成す【为言】。また問中に我等為有と云うは、これ神我である。【已上明燈抄等の意である】 上の二過中の初過
【下段】
【乃至】後過について。論文の前後に付いて、初過後過と云わない。前陳を初過と云い、後陳を後過と云う。仍って所別不成能別不成は、次の如く所依不成能依不成の名がある。 由是所立不与能依等について。これは上に宗依所依能依の名を挙げ了るによって、これに隣る所立不相離性の宗体に、この名無しと云う事である。
「俱不極成者等」以下
「有俱能別不成俱非所別」【乃至】「能別不成中全俱非句是者」について。 尋ねて云う。今指す所は、能別不成全四句中の第三句である【。脱ヵ】而して彼は俱能別不成の句である。既にこれは俱句である。全く俱非句に非ず。今何故俱非句と云うのか。 答えて、能別不成について、自他不成に非ざるは、これ常に俱句の相に非ず。而して俱非と云うは、この義に非ざるか。謂わば能別は自他俱に成らず。故に俱と名づく。所別は自他俱に不成に非ず。故に非と名づく。今これを合わせて、俱非句と云う。俱能別不成の句は、所別は定んで俱非不成なるべき故である。
「有俱所別不成」【乃至】「所別不成中全俱非句者」について。この俱非句も、また前に准ずべし。
「上来三過皆証自相等」以下
英語訳
[Right Page]
390
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 6
42
[Upper Section]
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā [Middle Volume, Part 2]
"Those who distinguish contradictions, etc." below
Regarding "namely what is said here - the moon contains/embraces rabbits," etc. - see the Western Regions Record, Volume 7. Indra was moved by the rabbit's self-sacrifice and placed it in the moon disc, transmitting this to later people [etc.]. [This legend is as usual. Taking the essential point.] Today's saying that there are rabbits in the moon comes from this transmission. Question: Looking at the commentary text, the moon becomes the rabbit-embracer [seen]. If it is in the moon, why say "the moon is the rabbit-embracer"? Also, what is the meaning of "embrace"? Answer: The Collected Records quotes a certain commentary saying: "rabbit-embracer" means "storehouse." The meaning records that there are rabbits in the moon [etc.]. According to this meaning, the character "embrace" has the meaning of "storehouse." Since the moon contains and stores rabbits within it, the moon is named "rabbit-embracer." Because the moon is something that embraces rabbits. If so, the commentary's statement "the moon is the rabbit-embracer" is clear in its meaning. There are still different interpretations of this matter. I have tentatively recorded one interpretation.
The examination of the Yogācāra inference and Bhāviveka's inference are as in the separate paper
"Self-statement contradiction, etc." below
Regarding "such as saying all statements are false," etc. - the Bright Lamp Commentary considers this inference to be one-part self-statement contradiction [etc. taking the gist]. There is doubt about this. In this inference, immediately the predicate "all are false" contradicts the essence of the subject "all statements," therefore this part is made self-statement contradiction. Following that the statement "all are false" expresses falsity and truth, it should contradict the subject "all statements." If so, this is complete self-statement contradiction. Why interpret it as one-part? Based on this, in the next text below, when making the four sentences of partial and complete categories, this present inference is immediately included in the complete sentence. The Bright Lamp Commentary is not careful [note: "wang" is probably "shen" meaning careful]. How so? Answer: It is indeed as the objection states. However, that commentary's intention is that following the present statement of falsity and truth, within the language of the subject "all statements," since it already generally includes both false and non-false statements, the predicate "all are false" contradicts the subject. Since this fault emerges, pointing to this basis, it perhaps interprets it as a one-part fault. This should also be examined further.
Question: The two types of four sentences of self-statement contradiction that the commentary presents are all merely methods of self-teaching contradiction. Why are they also made self-statement contradiction? Answer: The present commentary's four-sentence text quotes Master Bi's text, which the commentary master does not agree with. However, Master Bin's refutation of Master Bi is precisely the point of doubt and difficulty. The Bright Lamp Commentary cites this background and, in rescuing Master Bin's objection, says: Tentatively, in the Lokāyata school, the four elements truly exist as four greats [note: "chi" is probably "da" meaning great]. This is indeed the reliable teaching that their school takes as master. Therefore, that the four elements establish true existence needs no saying. This immediately establishes non-reality. Is this not contradicting self-statement? The four elements of that school immediately express reality in their statements. Therefore, taking contradiction with self-teaching and self-statement, this also becomes this fault [meaning]. This point is immediately clear in the commentary text. Also regarding "both, either-one, complete, uncertain, etc." - concerning self-statement contradiction, there is definite self-statement contradiction and uncertain self-statement contradiction. Definite means ordinary self-statement contradiction, as explained above. Uncertain is like establishing that where smoke and clouds are indeterminate, there can be fire, etc. This also has various sentences: self complete uncertain self-statement contradiction, other complete self-statement contradiction [what the commentary calls "either-one" refers to this]
[Lower Section]
both complete self-statement contradiction [what the commentary calls "both" refers to this]. This is the scope that the commentary raises. By analogy, there should also be three types of one-part faults. This is precisely the point of reverse writing, etc.
"Subject-term not established, etc." below
Regarding "Question: if one says 'I am thought'" [up to] "then there is no fault; if not, it becomes [faulty]" - first, this question concerns the inference mentioned above "I am impermanent," etc., when marking distinguishing words, there is immediately no error. This doubt arises. The question's meaning says: Like placing the word "ultimate" in shared comparative inference to distinguish worldly contradictions, etc., that matter is reasonable because the thesis-support is mutually accepted. Like the present "saying I am thought," since it has already become "subject-term statement not established," how can one place distinguishing words to establish the divine self as existing? Even if distinguishing terms are placed, since the thesis-support is not mutually accepted, one cannot escape the fault. When placing distinguishing terms, saying that generally all is without fault cannot be correct [meaning]. The answer's meaning says: In self-comparative and other-comparative [inference], although the thesis-support is not mutually accepted, they also place distinguishing words and finish. Then there is no fault. For the present subject-term "I," if established by non-Buddhists, one should place the words "I say"; if established by Buddha-dharma, one should place the words "what you maintain." Namely, tentatively, the distinguishing words "I say" necessarily have a referent, just as words like "form" necessarily have referents. Therefore, when these words are needed, there is immediately no fault. If not so, then a fault is immediately formed [meaning]. Therefore the commentary says: what is called "I as designation" is not the divine self, but one's own accepted meaning. It is precisely the meaning of "ego." This is a matter of distinguishing words. Also, saying "if not, it becomes [faulty]" means if not so, then a fault is formed [meaning]. Also, in the question saying "whether I, etc., exist" refers to the divine self. [The above is the meaning of the Bright Lamp Commentary, etc.] Regarding the first fault among the above two faults
[up to] the latter fault - concerning the sequence of the treatise text, it does not say "first fault, latter fault." The prior statement is called "first fault," the latter statement is called "latter fault." Therefore, subject-term not established and predicate-term not established have names like support not established and dependent not established, as follows. Regarding "therefore the thesis established does not correspond with the dependent, etc." - this is because, having raised the names of thesis-support, support, and dependent above, the adjacent thesis-essence of inseparable nature of the thesis established lacks this name.
"Both not established, etc." below
Regarding "there is both predicate-term not established, both neither subject-term" [up to] "in predicate-term not established, the complete both-neither sentence is" - Question: What is now pointed to is the third sentence among the complete four sentences of predicate-term not established [period missing?]. However, that is a sentence of both predicate-term not established. Since it is already a "both" sentence, it is completely not a "both-neither" sentence. Now why call it a "both-neither" sentence? Answer: Concerning predicate-term not established, not being self-other not established is ordinarily not the characteristic of a "both" sentence. However, saying "both-neither" - is this not this meaning? Namely, the predicate-term is not established for both self and other, therefore named "both." The subject-term is not "not established" for both self and other, therefore named "neither." Now combining these, it is called a "both-neither sentence." The sentence of both predicate-term not established - the subject-term should definitely be both-neither not established.
Regarding "there is both subject-term not established" [up to] "in subject-term not established, complete both-neither sentence" - this both-neither sentence should also follow the previous [pattern].
"The above three faults all prove self-characteristics, etc." below
[Left Page]
391
Private Commentary on the Great Commentary of Hetuvidyā, Volume 6
43
[Upper Section]
both complete self-statement contradiction [what the commentary calls "both" refers to this]. This is the scope that the commentary raises. By analogy, there should also be three types of one-part faults. This is precisely the point of reverse writing, etc.
"Subject-term not established, etc." below
Regarding "Question: if one says 'I am thought'" [up to] "then there is no fault; if not, it becomes [faulty]" - first, this question concerns the inference mentioned above "I am impermanent," etc., when marking distinguishing words, there is immediately no error. This doubt arises. The question's meaning says: Like placing the word "ultimate" in shared comparative inference to distinguish worldly contradictions, etc., that matter is reasonable because the thesis-support is mutually accepted. Like the present "saying I am thought," since it has already become "subject-term statement not established," how can one place distinguishing words to establish the divine self as existing? Even if distinguishing terms are placed, since the thesis-support is not mutually accepted, one cannot escape the fault. When placing distinguishing terms, saying that generally all is without fault cannot be correct [meaning]. The answer's meaning says: In self-comparative and other-comparative [inference], although the thesis-support is not mutually accepted, they also place distinguishing words and finish. Then there is no fault. For the present subject-term "I," if established by non-Buddhists, one should place the words "I say"; if established by Buddha-dharma, one should place the words "what you maintain." Namely, tentatively, the distinguishing words "I say" necessarily have a referent, just as words like "form" necessarily have referents. Therefore, when these words are needed, there is immediately no fault. If not so, then a fault is immediately formed [meaning]. Therefore the commentary says: what is called "I as designation" is not the divine self, but one's own accepted meaning. It is precisely the meaning of "ego." This is a matter of distinguishing words. Also, saying "if not, it becomes [faulty]" means if not so, then a fault is formed [meaning]. Also, in the question saying "whether I, etc., exist" refers to the divine self. [The above is the meaning of the Bright Lamp Commentary, etc.] Regarding the first fault among the above two faults
[Lower Section]
[up to] the latter fault - concerning the sequence of the treatise text, it does not say "first fault, latter fault." The prior statement is called "first fault," the latter statement is called "latter fault." Therefore, subject-term not established and predicate-term not established have names like support not established and dependent not established, as follows. Regarding "therefore the thesis established does not correspond with the dependent, etc." - this is because, having raised the names of thesis-support, support, and dependent above, the adjacent thesis-essence of inseparable nature of the thesis established lacks this name.
"Both not established, etc." below
Regarding "there is both predicate-term not established, both neither subject-term" [up to] "in predicate-term not established, the complete both-neither sentence is" - Question: What is now pointed to is the third sentence among the complete four sentences of predicate-term not established [period missing?]. However, that is a sentence of both predicate-term not established. Since it is already a "both" sentence, it is completely not a "both-neither" sentence. Now why call it a "both-neither" sentence? Answer: Concerning predicate-term not established, not being self-other not established is ordinarily not the characteristic of a "both" sentence. However, saying "both-neither" - is this not this meaning? Namely, the predicate-term is not established for both self and other, therefore named "both." The subject-term is not "not established" for both self and other, therefore named "neither." Now combining these, it is called a "both-neither sentence." The sentence of both predicate-term not established - the subject-term should definitely be both-neither not established.
Regarding "there is both subject-term not established" [up to] "in subject-term not established, complete both-neither sentence" - this both-neither sentence should also follow the previous [pattern].
"The above three faults all prove self-characteristics, etc." below