大般涅槃經集解 53.16

53.16

案僧亮曰：第三難也。僧宗曰：第三難言不可治。若遇不遇俱不可治者，夫為惡不過闡提，此人既有佛性，此不可斷，當知斷善之言未為理實也。如佛昔說十二部經，善有二種者，此第三家子句言：既不斷佛性，便是性在身中。既在身中，便應遮地獄。此就見用為難也。寶亮曰：第三難不應受闡提名。就此難中開為兩關：若闡提有佛性，佛性是善，何故言斷諸善根名一闡提耶？後關言：如佛昔說十二部經，善有二種，一常二無常者。難意用正因性善作常，緣因善作無常。若如此，緣中所生善，虛而無力，可不能遮地獄；正因性是常，力用應強，何故不遮一闡提不入地獄耶？

Sengliang comments: This is the third objection. Sengzong says: The third objection says they cannot be cured. If whether meeting [a physician] or not, they equally cannot be cured: evil does not exceed that of an icchantika, yet since this person possesses the buddhadhātu, which cannot be severed, one must know that the statement about severing the good is not the true principle. As when the Buddha formerly spoke in the twelve divisions of the canon that there are two kinds of good—this sub-clause of the third argument says: Since the buddhadhātu is not severed, the nature remains within the body. Since it remains within the body, it should block hell. This raises an objection based on manifestation and function. Baoliang says: The third objection is that they should not receive the name icchantika. Within this objection, it opens into two parts: If an icchantika possesses the buddhadhātu, and the buddhadhātu is good, why is it said that severing all kuśalamūlas is called an icchantika? The latter part states: As the Buddha formerly taught in the twelve divisions of the canon, there are two kinds of good: the permanent and the impermanent. The intent of the objection takes the good of the direct-cause nature as permanent, and the good of the conditioning causes as impermanent. If so, the good generated within conditions is empty and powerless, and indeed cannot block hell; but the direct-cause nature is permanent, and its power and function should be strong—why does it not block the icchantika from entering hell?"