大般涅槃經義記 3.140

3.140

令他淨中，先喻、後合。就前喻中，初先反明不治有損。遮水之阜名為「堤塘」，喻於眾法。眾法損壞名穿「有孔」，「水」喻眾僧，僧行缺減名為「淋漏」。「何以」下釋，「若有」已下順明持益，四依為人秉法為治，僧行無損名「水不出」。就下合中，先合治益，「菩薩亦爾」合向有人，「雖與破戒同其僧事，所有戒律不如堤塘穿穴淋漏」合水不出。下次合初不治之損，言「何以故」徵前起後，何故戒律不如堤塘？「若無」已下舉後顯前，反以釋之。「若無清淨持戒之人」合初句中無人治故。「僧則損」下合初句中提塘有孔，水則淋漏。

In 'causing others to be pure,' the analogy comes first, followed by the application. In the preceding analogy, it first shows in reverse that a lack of repair brings harm. A mound that holds back water is called an 'embankment,' an analogy for the communal rules. The impairment of the communal rules is called 'having a hole bored through'; the 'water' is an analogy for the Saṅgha; the deficiency in the Saṅgha's practice is called 'leaking.' From 'Why is this?' onward explains. From 'if there is...' onward directly clarifies the benefit of upholding: the four reliances act for others by maintaining the Dharma as repair, and the Saṅgha's practice suffers no deficiency, which is called 'the water does not leak out.' In the application below, it first applies the benefit of repair: 'the bodhisattva is also like this' corresponds to the person mentioned above; 'though engaging in monastic affairs together with precept-breakers, their moral discipline is not like an embankment holed and leaking' corresponds to the water not leaking out. Next, it applies the initial harm of non-repair: the words 'Why is this?' query what precedes to introduce what follows: why is the moral discipline not like an embankment? From 'if there were no...' onward adduces the latter to reveal the former, explaining it in reverse: 'if there were no pure precept-holders' corresponds in the first clause to having no one to repair it; from 'the Saṅgha would be damaged' onward corresponds in the first clause to the embankment having holes and the water leaking out.