大般涅槃經義記 8.263

8.263

自下第三重以人取破其定有。「世人無子故求娉婦」舉其取事。下就破有，句別有二：以先有兒，徵為非女。若先懷妊，便是其婦，何得言女？二「若是女」下，以先是女，難破有兒。句別有四：一牒以直非，「若言是女，先有兒性，故應娉者，是義不然」。二「何以」下，「破有兒性亦應有孫」，過分類徵。若女生兒得有兒性，女中之兒亦應有兒，故言有孫。三「若有」下，破其有孫。恐其破徵齊立有孫，故復破之。若有其孫，是兒與孫便是兄弟。「何以」下釋，「一腹生故」。四「是故」下，結無非有。以有兒性有前過故，我說無兒。自下第四以人不見破其先有。先就乳等責其不見，次就樹徵，後類乳等。上來四段合為第一破其所執。

From here below is the third [point], again using human procurement to refute its definitive existence. "Worldly people, having no son, therefore seek to marry a woman" adduces the matter of procurement. Below, it proceeds to refute existence, with two distinct clauses: First, through having a child beforehand, he interrogates her not being an unmarried woman. If she were already pregnant beforehand, she would already be a wife; how could she be called an unmarried woman? Second, below "If she is an unmarried woman...", through her being an unmarried woman beforehand, he raises a challenge to refute her having a child. There are four distinct clauses: First, taking up the words to directly negate them: "If you say that she is an unmarried woman, but beforehand has the nature of a child, and therefore one ought to marry her, this meaning is not so." Second, below "For what reason?": "Refuting having the nature of a child, she should also have a grandchild"—an analogical interrogation by carrying it to an absurd excess. If a woman giving birth to a child can have the nature of a child, the child within the woman should also have a child, hence it says she would have a grandchild. Third, below "If she has...", he refutes her having a grandchild. Fearing that in response to the challenge he might evenly maintain that she has a grandchild, he therefore refutes it again. If she had a grandchild, this child and the grandchild would be brothers. Below "For what reason?", it explains: "Because they are born of the same womb." Fourth, below "Therefore...", he concludes with non-existence and not existence. Because having the nature of a child entails the previous faults, I say there is no child. From here below is the fourth [point], using the fact that humans do not see it to refute its prior existence. First, he censures their not seeing it with regard to milk and so forth; next, he interrogates with regard to the tree; later, he draws an analogy to milk and so forth. The four sections above combine to form the first [part], refuting what is grasped.