大般涅槃經義記 8.293

8.293

「此菩提心實非性」下，答第三句。向前問言「若菩提心是佛性者，一闡提等不應能斷」，今明此心非佛性故，闡提能斷。文中初言「心非佛性」略為釋非。「何以故」下釋顯非義，先徵、後辯。「一闡提等斷善墮獄」舉斷顯非。「若菩提心是佛性」下破是顯非。兩句破之：初明「若心是佛性者」是心則常，一闡提輩不能得斷，不名闡提；而菩提心為人斷絕成闡提故，明知非性。後明「若心是佛性者」則非無常，是無常故明知非性。上來釋非，「是故」下結。

From "This bodhicitta is truly not the nature" downward answers the third objection. Earlier it was asked: "If bodhicitta is the buddha-nature, an icchantika and the like should not be able to sever it." Here it is clarified that because this mind is not the buddha-nature, an icchantika can sever it. In the text, the initial statement that "the mind is not the buddha-nature" briefly explains the negation. From "Why is that?" downward explains and reveals the meaning of this negation, first interrogating and then explaining. "An icchantika and the like sever the roots of goodness and fall into hell" adduces the severing to reveal the negation. From "If bodhicitta were the buddha-nature" downward refutes the affirmation to reveal the negation. It refutes it with two clauses: first, it clarifies that "if the mind were the buddha-nature," this mind would be permanent, those who are icchantikas could not sever it, and they would not be called icchantikas; yet because bodhicitta is severed by people so that they become icchantikas, one clearly knows it is not the nature. Second, it clarifies that "if the mind were the buddha-nature," it would not be impermanent; because it is impermanent, one clearly knows it is not the nature. The foregoing explains the negation; from "Therefore" downward concludes.