在漢傳佛教因明理論傳統中，構成因明論證的每一個概念都必須考慮參與主體的文化隸屬關係對該論證活動的影響，而規定這一文化隸屬關係的就是比量論證要素中的「極成」規則。但是，歷來被漢傳因明認為是商羯羅主創見的「極成」理論實際上可以在陳那後期《集量論》中找到文獻依據，並且依據商羯羅主《因明入正理論》和陳那《因明正理門論》所展開的整個唐疏以及近現代的因明研究中，「極成」概念一直被誤認為是與「共許」合一的涵義，這種混淆實際上是將由陳那開創的「量論」退轉到了前期「正理」階段，因此對二者的澄清必須回到以「量」為中心的陳那二量體系中重新審視其內在意蘊。由於「極成」是與現量相關的對所量自相的確認，因此，基於佛教跨文化互動下的說理體系，對因明的邏輯類型與特徵之考察就必須將文化因素作為變量引入因明研究的領域。

In the Han-sect theory of hetuvidya, every concept that plays a part in the hetuvidya arguments needs to consider the roles that the cultures of the participants have on the argumentative activities. What regulates this cultural subordinative relationships is the prasiddha in the theory of anumana. However, the theory of “non-prasiddha” which was commonly considered to have been created by Sankarasvamin can find its source in the literature in Pramana-samuccaya of Dignaga. In addition, in the research on the hetuvidya in tang dynasty and modern times carried out according to Nyayapravewa of Sankarasvamin and Hetuvidya nyaya dvara sastra of Dignaga, the concept of “prasiddha” has always been mistaken for “Sammata”, which results from a reversion of Dignaga’s “Pramanya-vada” to his early “Nyaya” stage. To clarify the differences of these two concepts, we must go back to the system of “Pramanya-vada” which is centered on Pramanya, and find its real meanings. Since “prasiddha” is the confirmation of Self-nature which is closely related to the pratyaksa, it is necessary, based on the Buddhist cross-cultural argumentative system, to introduce cultural factors as variables into the field of argumentation in order to study the logical types and characteristics of hetuvidya.