大般涅槃經義記 7.111

7.111

第二段中，釋難不盡。前難有三：一舉墮地獄難破有性、二舉無常等難破有性、三約斷善難破有性。今答第三，初二不答。初難與下第九德中難辭相似，釋不異彼，故此不答。其第二難如後〈師子品〉中解釋，故此不答。答第三中先舉難辭，難辭之中備有三句，就後以舉，下正辯釋。難中三句備如上辯：一約相徵性，若犯重等有佛性，辯一闡提人斷善根時所有佛性云何不斷？二從相徵性，佛性若斷，云何復言常、樂、我、淨？三約性徵相，佛性不斷，何故名為一闡提耶？

In the second section, the explanation of the challenges is not exhaustive. The previous challenges were three: first, citing rebirth in hell to challenge and refute the existence of the nature; second, citing impermanence and so forth to challenge and refute the existence of the nature; third, relying on the severance of good roots to challenge and refute the existence of the nature. Now it answers the third, not answering the first two. The first challenge has phrasing similar to the challenge in the ninth virtue below, and the explanation is not different from that one, hence it is not answered here. The second challenge is explained as in the later "Chapter on the Lion's Roar", hence it is not answered here. In answering the third, it first cites the phrasing of the challenge; within the phrasing of the challenge all three clauses are complete; it cites it from the end, and below it directly discriminates and explains it. The three clauses in the challenge are completely as discriminated above: First, examining the nature through marks: if those who commit the major offenses and the like have the buddha-nature, then when discriminating an icchantika severing roots of goodness, how is their buddha-nature not severed? Second, examining the nature from the marks: if the buddha-nature is severed, how can one again speak of permanence, bliss, self, and purity? Third, examining marks through the nature: if the nature is not severed, then there is goodness; how can they be called an icchantika?