大般涅槃經集解 53.32

53.32

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.