維摩經玄疏 5.59

5.59

七、三論師云：「若他明縛脫，縛是自縛，脫是自脫，即是自性之縛脫，此非假縛脫；不得是非縛非脫之縛脫，此非不思議之解脫也。」今明「縛非自縛，由脫說縛；脫非自脫，由縛說脫。」由脫說縛，即是假縛；由縛說脫，即是假脫。假縛非縛，假脫非脫，即是非縛非脫，畢竟清淨；而說縛脫者，即是假名不思議之縛脫也。不思議之縛，即是不思議之脫，故言不思議解脫也。但彼假名方便之語，轉側多方，豈可定述。此略出初章耳。

Seventh, the Sanlun masters say: 'If others clarify bondage and liberation, bondage is self-bondage and liberation is self-liberation; this is bondage and liberation of self-nature, not nominal bondage and liberation. Failing to realize the bondage and liberation of non-bondage and non-liberation, this is not inconceivable liberation.' Now we clarify: 'Bondage is not self-bondage; bondage is spoken of dependent on liberation. Liberation is not self-liberation; liberation is spoken of dependent on bondage.' Speaking of bondage dependent on liberation is nominal bondage; speaking of liberation dependent on bondage is nominal liberation. Nominal bondage is not bondage; nominal liberation is not liberation; this is non-bondage and non-liberation, fundamentally pure. Yet speaking of bondage and liberation is the inconceivable bondage and liberation of nominal designation. Inconceivable bondage is itself inconceivable liberation; therefore it is called inconceivable liberation. However, their conventional words of provisional designation shift and turn in many ways; how could they be fixedly described? This merely sets forth the initial chapter.