大般涅槃經義記 9.214

9.214

上來第一就時徵問。自下第二就人徵問，難彼闡提有無之義。於中，先舉如來所說六種佛性，「若斷善」下就人設難。前中，「如來說性有六」牒佛上言。佛前第七功德之中說斯六種，故今牒之。下列其名，名如上釋。此明因性，故隱我樂。義如上解。下文具就五種六種七種佛性，明闡提人有無之義。今但舉六，言略故爾。就人難中，「若斷善根有佛性者不名斷善」執有徵無。「若無佛性，云何復言一切皆有」執無徵有。「若言佛性亦有亦斷，云何說常」雙牒以徵。有而可斷便同有為，云何說常？

The above is the first part, questioning in terms of time. From here down is the second part, questioning in terms of persons, challenging the meaning of existence and non-existence in that icchantika. In this, he first adduces the six kinds of buddha-nature spoken of by the Tathāgata; from "If one who has cut off roots of goodness" onwards, he raises objections in terms of persons. In the former, "The Tathāgata says that the nature has six [kinds]" repeats the Buddha's previous words. The Buddha spoke of these six kinds earlier within the seventh virtue; hence it is now repeated. Below, their names are listed, which are as explained above. Since this clarifies the causal nature, "self" and "bliss" are concealed. The meaning is as explained above. The text below fully clarifies the meaning of existence and non-existence in the icchantika in terms of five kinds, six kinds, and seven kinds of buddha-nature. Here he adduces only six, which is simply due to an abbreviation of phrasing. In raising objections in terms of persons, "If one who has cut off the roots of goodness has the buddha-nature, this is not called cutting off goodness" clings to existence to challenge non-existence. "If he has no buddha-nature, why say again that all have it?" clings to non-existence to challenge existence. "If one says that the buddha-nature both exists and is cut off, how can it be spoken of as eternal?" repeats both to challenge. If it exists yet can be cut off, it would be identical to the conditioned; how can it be spoken of as eternal?