大般涅槃經義記 8.271

8.271

四「若言了因有二種」下難破俱了。云何難破？乳中性了，能自顯了、能復了他，乳中之酪義無斯理。文中初言「若了有二自了了他，是義不然」舉以直非。「了因一法云何有二」以理徵責。「若有二」下，將乳類破。若有二者，乳亦應二，准了責之。責之云何？乳中了因得有自了了他二種，乳亦應二：一者有自性之酪、二有了因所了之酪。若乳無二，云何了因而獨有二？以乳破了，乳中既無兩種之酪，云何乳中獨有二了？了無二故，不能自了亦不了他，何能了他乳中性酪令其有乎？此第二番。

Fourth, from "If you say the clarifying cause has two kinds" below, he challenges and refutes clarifying both. How does he challenge and refute it? That the nature-clarifier in milk can manifest itself and can also clarify another—for the curd in milk, there is no such principle. In the text, he first says, "If the clarifier has two [functions], clarifying itself and clarifying another, this meaning is not so," adducing it to directly negate it. "How can the single dharma of a clarifying cause be twofold?" interrogates and reproaches it with reason. From "If there were two" below, he uses milk analogously to refute it. If there were two, milk should also be twofold; he reproaches it based on the clarifier. How does he reproach it? If the clarifying cause in milk can have two kinds—clarifying itself and clarifying another—then milk should also have two kinds: first, having curds of its own nature; second, having curds clarified by the clarifying cause. If milk is not twofold, how could the clarifying cause alone be twofold? By using milk to refute the clarifier: since milk does not have two kinds of curds, how could milk alone have two kinds of clarifiers? Because the clarifier is not twofold, it cannot clarify itself nor clarify another; how could it clarify another—the nature-curd in milk—so as to cause it to exist? This is the second round.