大般涅槃經集解 66.28

66.28

案僧亮曰：凡有四問，此第一問。夫有法不應三世，今定何世所攝耶？僧宗曰：凡有二問。初問佛性三世攝不？次問闡提現在有佛性不？若有，不應言斷善根也；若無，不應言斷善根也。若無，不應悉有也。寶亮曰：凡有三難。第一舉果性作難，問斷善根人有佛性者，此佛性為在過去？為在未來？為在現在？為遍三世？若使佛性在三世者，云何言常耶？第二難云：若斷善根人有佛性，是善豈得言斷？若使無者，佛云何言斷耶？第三遮佛意。若謂亦有亦斷者，復不得言佛性是常也。道慧記曰：問有三重：二重如上：第三重謂：若不全有全無者，應半有半無也，故云亦有亦斷也。智秀曰：將欲為難，先定佛性三世之中在何世耶？下作三翻難也。

Sengliang comments: There are four questions in all; this is the first question. Existing phenomena should not be outside the three times; now, to which time is it determined to belong? Sengzong says: There are two questions in all. First, he asks whether buddhadhātu is subsumed under the three times or not. Next, he asks whether an icchantika presently has buddhadhātu or not. If they have it, one should not say they sever the roots of goodness; if they do not have it, one should not say that all possess it. Baoliang says: There are three challenges in all. First, raising the nature of the fruit to make a challenge, he asks: if one who severs the roots of goodness has buddhadhātu, is this buddhadhātu in the past, in the future, in the present, or does it pervade the three times? If buddhadhātu were in the three times, how could it be called permanent? The second challenge says: if a person who severs the roots of goodness has buddhadhātu, since this is good, how can it be said to be severed? If they lack it, how could the Buddha say it is severed? The third precludes the Buddha's intention: if one says it both exists and is severed, one again cannot say buddhadhātu is permanent. Daohui's notes state: The questions are threefold: two are as above; the third means that if it is neither entirely existing nor entirely non-existing, it should be half-existing and half-non-existing, hence it is said to 'both exist and be severed.' Zhixiu says: Intending to make a challenge, he first determines in which time buddhadhātu is among the three times. Below he makes a three-turn challenge.