大般涅槃經集解 67.28

67.28

案僧亮曰：為外生意，答上難也。謂不醎之物雖有醎性，微故不知，求外醎以發也。僧宗曰：竝其有性也。若言不醎之物有醎性故，須鹽發者，今見不醎之物置醎物中，其味則正可得。而鹽中亦有微不醎性耶？若爾者，醎與不醎各有二性，何故不合之時不可獨用耶？故知諸法先無果也。智秀曰：第六因緣也，以三復次破之。第一責各有二性。第二由其故執因中非無果體，如要假外四大而增故，仍反質責之。若先有者，不應次第也。第三更舉尸利沙菓，以證因中無先有果。此即第一也。

Sengliang comments: He formulates the idea from the opponent's perspective, answering the challenge above. This means: although unsalty things have the nature of saltiness, it is unnoticeable because it is subtle, requiring external saltiness to manifest it. Sengzong says: He exposes the absurdity of its possessing inherent nature. If you say that because unsalty things have the nature of saltiness they need salt to manifest it, now we see that when an unsalty thing is placed in a salty substance, its flavor is just rightly obtained; could it be that salt also has a subtle unsalty nature? If that were so, salty and unsalty would each possess both natures; why, then, when they are not combined, can neither be used alone? Therefore, we know that dharmas previously lack the effect. Zhixiu says: This is the sixth causal scenario, refuted by three subsequent arguments. First, he challenges them regarding each having both natures. Second, because they still cling to the causal factor not lacking the substance of the effect—as it necessarily requires external four great elements to augment it—he turns it back to question and challenge them: if it existed previously, it should not have a sequence. Third, he further adduces the *śirīṣa* fruit to prove that no effect exists previously in the cause. This is the first.