法華文句記 6.128

6.128

次「捉狗」等者，有此一釋故曰「一云」，狗足如因、捉之如謗，捉足撲之如令絕聲，故云「令其失聲」。因果法爾不由執無，却由捉撲所以有聲，如由計故所以有生。「以脚加頸」者，聲不絕故，復以狗脚加於狗頸。謗無苦因之上，復更撥無苦果，如脚加頸，望必絕聲，聲豈不甚，撥因尚生撥果彌甚。「集本得果」下釋上句，捉狗兩足豈能絕聲，徒謗無因果何能免果？「集無得苦」下，釋下句，如加頸時欲令絕聲，由加聲大。又「謗無苦因」者，秖指非因計因，即是謗也。本是世因今謂出世，即當謗無兩因故也。

Next, regarding "seizing the dog," and so forth: because there is this alternative explanation, [the text] states "one says." The feet of the dog are like causes; seizing them is like slandering. Seizing its feet and throwing it down is like causing it to stop making noise, hence it is said to "cause it to lose its voice." Causes and effects are naturally so and do not depend on clinging to non-existence; rather, it is on account of seizing and throwing down that there is noise, just as it is on account of conceptual grasping that there is birth. Regarding "placing the paws upon its neck": because the noise does not cease, one further places the dog's paws upon the dog's neck. On top of slandering the cause of suffering as non-existent, one further negates the effect of suffering as non-existent, which is like placing the paws upon the neck; hoping that the noise must cease, how could the noise not become worse? If negating the cause still brings forth [noise], negating the effect does so even more. The passage below starting with "[mistakenly thinking that] origination fundamentally obtains the effect" explains the upper line: how could seizing two feet of the dog stop the noise? Pointlessly slandering that there is no cause or effect, how could one avoid the effect? The passage below starting with "[mistakenly thinking that] the absence of origination obtains suffering" explains the lower line: just as when placing [the paws] upon the neck wishing to make the noise cease, on account of adding [them] the noise becomes louder. Moreover, "slandering the cause of suffering as non-existent" merely points to conceptualizing as a cause that which is not a cause, which is itself slander. What is fundamentally a mundane cause is now thought to be supramundane, which precisely constitutes slandering both causes as non-existent.