大般涅槃經集解 56.40

56.40

案僧亮曰：上破正因，此下破緣因。將欲破故，先立正因有須緣因之義。虛空無果，故不假也。僧宗曰：第三翻，證有也。以定有故，須緣因為了耳。寶亮曰：以有正因，故須緣因；虛空無故，無此二因。故知有也。

Sengliang comments: Above, he refuted the direct cause (upādāna-hetu); here below, he refutes the contributory cause (pratyaya-hetu). Intending to refute it, he first posits the premise that the direct cause requires a contributory cause. Space has no result, and thus does not rely upon one. Sengzong comments: This is the third turn, proving existence: because it definitely exists, it requires a contributory cause as an illuminating cause (vyañjaka-hetu). Baoliang comments: Because there is a direct cause, it requires a contributory cause; space lacks it, so it lacks these two causes. Therefore, we know it exists.