大般涅槃經集解 53.32

53.32

案僧亮曰：答第四難也。僧宗曰：此答第三難。其難言：不斷佛法，云何言斷善根？今答言：一闡名信，提名不具。信不具故，名一闡提。豈以無師佛性名闡提耶？寶亮曰：次答第三難。難言：闡提有佛性，云何名斷善根？佛今答言：不具信故，名一闡提。明佛性非信，善亦不從具生。眾生五陰是發信心之具。正因佛性既非善，又不從五陰具生，云何可斷？若正因佛性從五陰具生，然則眾生五陰是發佛性之具，經亦不應言佛性非信、眾生非具。以此義推，當知眾生五陰依正因性有，非是正因性依五陰有。然此中推檢，與《勝鬘經》明義一種，生死依如來藏有也，非如來藏依生死。故得知文義微，證理𥅟然矣。下去諸句，義例亦爾。但佛性非是緣中所生之善，又非是不善。何以爾？正因之性既不從方便而得，云何可斷？然能得善果，復非不善。闡提乃斷緣中所生者，故得一闡提名也。

Sengliang states: This answers the fourth objection. Sengzong states: This answers the third objection. His objection stated: 'If the Buddha-dharma is not severed, why is it said that he severs his kuśalamūlas?' Now the reply states: 'Iccan' means faith, and 'tika' means incomplete. Because he is incomplete in faith, he is called an icchantika. How could he be called an icchantika on account of lacking the unconditioned buddhadhātu? Baoliang states: Next, this answers the third objection. The objection stated: 'If an icchantika has buddhadhātu, why is he said to sever kuśalamūlas?' The Buddha now answers, saying: 'Because he is incomplete in faith, he is called an icchantika.' This clarifies that buddhadhātu is not faith, nor is goodness produced from the instrument [of the five aggregates]. The five aggregates of sentient beings are the instruments for generating the faithful mind. Since the primary cause (kāraṇa-hetu) buddhadhātu is neither good nor produced from the instrument of the five aggregates, how could it be severed? If the primary cause buddhadhātu were produced from the instrument of the five aggregates, then the five aggregates of sentient beings would be the instruments that produce buddhadhātu, and the sūtra should not have said that buddhadhātu is not faith and sentient beings are not the instruments. Deducing from this principle, one should know that the five aggregates of sentient beings exist in dependence upon the primary cause nature; it is not that the primary cause nature exists in dependence upon the five aggregates. Investigating this here, it is identical in meaning with the explanation in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra that saṃsāra exists in dependence upon the tathāgatagarbha, not that the tathāgatagarbha exists in dependence upon saṃsāra. Thus one knows the text's meaning is subtle, and its verification of the principle is luminous. In the subsequent passages, the conceptual paradigms are also like this. Buddhadhātu is merely not a good produced among conditions, nor is it an evil. Why is this? Since the nature of the primary cause is not attained through upāya, how could it be severed? Yet it can attain good fruits, and furthermore is not evil. The icchantika merely severs that which is produced among conditions; therefore he receives the name of icchantika.