大般涅槃經疏 21.13

21.13

「云何如來非無漏」下，第二釋非無漏，半句。文云如來常行有漏者，數人云：有漏無漏逐境為判，若緣漏境名為有漏，緣無漏境即名無漏。此中明如來有漏，似數人解。何故爾？文云「如來常行有漏」，有漏即是二十五有，故知是從二十五有境為名。論人從心，何時逐境？我體清淨無煩惱時，雖緣漏境心不成漏。此之兩解，為鬪爭本。此中具明如來非有漏非無漏。非有漏者，乃明如來無復諸漏。非無漏者，明佛猶有漏。此漏無漏，欲明佛是非有漏非無漏，漏無漏雙非，何曾云是有漏無漏？

From "How is the Tathāgata not free of outflows?" downward is the second part, explaining "not free of outflows," a half-sentence. As for the text stating that the Tathāgata constantly practices that which has outflows, the Sarvāstivādin Abhidharmikas (shu ren) say: outflows and the absence of outflows are determined according to the cognitive object; if one takes an object with outflows as an intentional object, it is called "having outflows"; if one takes an object without outflows as an intentional object, it is called "without outflows." Here, explaining that the Tathāgata has outflows resembles the interpretation of the Sarvāstivādins. Why is this so? The text says "The Tathāgata constantly practices that which has outflows"; "having outflows" refers to the twenty-five states of existence, so we know it takes its name from the realm of the twenty-five states of existence. The Sautrāntika/Madhyamaka treatise masters (lun ren) follow the mind: when would they ever follow the cognitive object? When my essence is pure and free of afflictions, even though I take an object with outflows as an intentional object, the mind does not become an outflow. These two interpretations are the root of dispute. Here it fully explains that the Tathāgata is neither with outflows nor without outflows. "Not with outflows" clarifies that the Tathāgata no longer has any outflows. "Not without outflows" clarifies that the Buddha still has outflows. Regarding these outflows and absence of outflows, it intends to clarify that the Buddha is neither with outflows nor without outflows—a double negation of outflows and freedom from outflows. How could it ever say that he has outflows or is without outflows?