[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大般涅槃經義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764) › 8.36 # 大般涅槃經義記 8.36 大般涅槃經義記 8.36 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8.36) 難辭六者：一明闡提有性得佛，難破佛說不作佛義；二「如說何等名為一闡提」下明一闡提性善不斷，難破佛說斷善根義；三如「佛昔說十二部」下明其闡提性善常在，難破佛說入地獄義；四「佛性不斷非闡提」下明性不斷，難破斷善作闡提義；五「若因佛性發菩提」下明有佛性自然向佛，難責如來為說法義；六從「佛說因果性」下明其因中定有果性，能得菩提，難破佛說因無果義。相從四者，第四一難與第二同，第五一難與初難同，故下無答，宜審記知。 > The six objections are: First, explaining that the icchantika possesses the nature and attains buddhahood, which objects to and refutes the Buddha's teaching that \[the icchantika\] does not become a buddha. Second, from 'As stated: What is termed an icchantika?' and so forth, explaining that the icchantika's innate good is not severed, which objects to and refutes the Buddha's teaching on the severing of the roots of good. Third, from 'As the Buddha previously taught in the twelve divisions of scripture' and so forth, explaining that the icchantika's innate good is constantly present, which objects to and refutes the Buddha's teaching on falling into hell. Fourth, from 'The buddha-nature is unsevered and not an icchantika' and so forth, explaining that the nature is unsevered, which objects to and refutes \[the teaching that\] severing the good makes one an icchantika. Fifth, from 'If on the basis of the buddha-nature one generates bodhi' and so forth, explaining that possessing the buddha-nature naturally directs one toward buddhahood, which objects to and criticizes the Tathāgata's teaching of the Dharma. Sixth, from 'The Buddha stated that in the cause the nature of the fruit' and so forth, explaining that within the cause there definitely exists the nature of the fruit that is capable of attaining bodhi, which objects to and refutes the Buddha's teaching that within the cause there is no fruit. As for the grouping into four: the fourth objection is the same as the second, and the fifth objection is the same as the first; therefore, below there is no separate answer \[for them\], which should be noted carefully. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8.35) - [Next: 8.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8.37) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764~en-mt.8.36) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.8.36) · Pramāṇa