釋禪波羅蜜次第法門 1.134

1.134

答曰：此欲簡諸佛菩薩有中道不共之法，故須作此分別。如凡夫專依有漏，二乘偏行無漏。今諸佛菩薩所得不共之法，不滯二邊，則無二邊之漏失，是以悉云無漏。何故得免二邊漏失？正以中道之法非二邊所攝，故云非有漏非無漏也。此之二說，語異而意同，故無乖失。若任理性而論，則一切皆名非有漏非無漏法，故《大品經》云：「色無縛無脫，乃至一切種智無縛無脫。」理既無縛無脫，稱理之行豈不同名無縛無脫？無縛無脫者，即是非有漏非無漏之異名也。

Answer: This distinction must be made because one wishes to single out the unshared dharma of the Middle Way possessed by the buddhas and bodhisattvas. Ordinary persons rely exclusively on the defiled, while followers of the two vehicles practice the undefiled in a one-sided manner. Now, the unshared dharma attained by the buddhas and bodhisattvas does not stagnate in the two extremes, and therefore lacks the outflow and loss of the two extremes; hence it is entirely called undefiled. Why can it avoid the outflow and loss of the two extremes? Precisely because the dharma of the Middle Way is not subsumed by the two extremes; hence it is called neither defiled nor undefiled. These two explanations differ in words but are identical in intent, so there is no inconsistency. If discussed according to the nature of principle, then all things are called neither defiled nor undefiled dharmas; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Sūtra says: "Form is neither bound nor freed, up to omniscience is neither bound nor freed." Since principle is neither bound nor freed, how could practice that accords with principle not likewise be called neither bound nor freed? "Neither bound nor freed" is merely an alternative name for neither defiled nor undefiled.