大般涅槃經集解 53.16

53.16

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?"