大般涅槃經集解 67.12

67.12

Sengliang comments: He formulates the idea from the perspective of water. This means: if, seeing that curd is produced from milk and not produced from water, you take this as proof that milk possesses the nature of curd, this is not proof. Why? Milk is a proximate cause, while curd is a remote cause. You see the proximate, but do not see the remote. In reality, both are causes, yet you claim that one has [the nature] and the other does not; this mind is not impartial. Zhixiu says: Below is the fourth causal scenario, taking up the adherent's conception. Their statement that one knows milk already possesses the nature of curd because it is able to produce curd—just as water lacks curd and therefore does not produce it—is refuted here by four subsequent arguments. First, he challenges them by demanding that grass must also contain milk, making the objection that this is necessarily unequal; second, he challenges them with the fault that curd would then have to produce milk; third, he cites a sūtra as proof; fourth, he adduces the harmonious coming together of the four factors to produce visual consciousness, correctly explaining the principle of a cause producing an effect. This is the first objection.