大般涅槃經義記 8.277

8.277

自下第二師子以其緣正二因證有本性，佛破明無。師子初言「如說二因，尼拘陀子以了因故令細得麁」乘言救義。由佛前言若性細者云何增長，故為此救。佛破有四：初「若本有何須了」者，難破有樹。二「若本無」下，難破無麁，若無麁性，了何所了，是一破也。本無麁性，竟何所了？若本無麁，了故生麁，何故不生佉陀羅樹，是二破也。「二俱無故」釋破所以。麁與佉陀並皆先無，何不俱生？三「細不見」下責其不見。「若細不見，麁應可見」法說以責，「如一塵」下喻說以責。「如是子中麁應可見」合喻以責，「何以故」下辯相以責。辯明子中樹有多果，果有多子，子有多樹，故名為麁。四「若尼拘子有性生」下舉燒類破，於中四句：一將樹類燒。若子生樹便言有樹，見子被燒本應有燒。二若本有燒，樹不應生，難破有燒。師子被徵，喜立性燒，故須難破。三「若一切法本有生」下，難破生滅兩性並立。師子被徵，喜於樹中建立兩性，生性故生、滅性故燒，故復破之。破意云何？子中生滅兩性既並，以何義故先生後滅不得一時？四「以是義」下結成無性。

From here below is the second [part], where Siṃhanāda proves that the original nature exists by means of the two causes—circumstantial and primary—and the Buddha refutes this by explaining its non-existence. Siṃhanāda first says, "As you speak of two causes, the nyagrodha seed, by means of the revealing cause, causes what is subtle to become coarse": he takes up [the Buddha's] words to rescue his thesis. Because the Buddha said earlier, "If its nature is subtle, how does it grow?", he therefore offers this rescue. The Buddha's refutation has four [points]: First, "If it is originally existent, what need is there for revealing?": he interrogates and refutes the existent tree. Second, from "If it is originally non-existent..." onward, he interrogates and refutes the non-existence of coarseness. If there is no coarse nature, what does the revealing reveal? This is the first refutation. If there is originally no coarse nature, what after all is revealed? If there is originally no coarseness, and through revealing coarseness is produced, why does it not produce a khadira tree? This is the second refutation. "Because both are absent": this explains the reason for the refutation. Both coarseness and the khadira were originally non-existent; why are they not both produced? Third, from "Subtle and not seen..." onward, he censures his not seeing it. "If the subtle is not seen, the coarse should be visible": he censures him by explaining in terms of doctrine. From "Like a single dust mote..." onward, he censures him by means of an analogy. "Like this, within the seed, the coarse should be visible": he censures him by applying the analogy. From "Why?" onward, he censures him by analyzing characteristics. He analyzes and clarifies that within the seed the tree has many fruits, the fruits have many seeds, and the seeds have many trees; hence it is called coarse. Fourth, from "If the nyagrodha seed has a nature that is born..." onward, he adduces being burned to refute by analogy. Therein are four clauses: 1. Comparing the tree to burning: if the seed generates the tree, so one says there is a tree, then seeing that the seed is burned, there should originally be burning. 2. If burning were originally present, the tree should not be born: he interrogates and refutes the existence of burning. Since Siṃhanāda, when challenged, is inclined to establish an innate burning, he must interrogate and refute it. 3. From "If all dharmas originally have birth..." onward, he interrogates and refutes the concurrent establishment of the two natures of arising and cessation. Siṃhanāda, when challenged, is inclined to establish two natures within the tree: it is born due to the nature of arising, and burned due to the nature of cessation; therefore, [the Buddha] refutes this again. What is the intent of the refutation? Since both the natures of arising and cessation are present together within the seed, by what principle does it first arise and then cease, rather than being simultaneous? 4. From "For this reason..." onward, he concludes that there is no nature.