大般涅槃經義記 3.24

3.24

上來第一明前諸喻非喻為喻，自下第二明喻非喻，不得定說。迦葉先問：「若當是喻，一向言喻；若當非喻，一向言非。云何如來作二種說？」下佛答之，明法不定，故不定說。文別有四：初害佛喻，明佛法身非喻為喻，不得定說；二害母喻，明佛報身非喻為喻，不得定說；三「以是因緣我說種種譬喻」已下結前第二，乘言便故；四「或有因緣亦可喻」下結前第一。

The above first [part] clarified that the preceding analogies were non-analogies taken as analogies; from here down, the second [part] clarifies that analogies are non-analogies and cannot be spoken of definitively. Kāśyapa first asks: "If it is an analogy, one should speak exclusively of an analogy; if it is not an analogy, one should speak exclusively of it not being one. Why does the Tathāgata make two kinds of statements?" Below, the Buddha answers, clarifying that phenomena are not determinate, and therefore cannot be spoken of definitively. There are four distinct sections of text: First, the analogy of harming the Buddha clarifies that the Buddha's dharmakāya is a non-analogy taken as an analogy, and cannot be spoken of definitively. Second, the analogy of harming the mother clarifies that the Buddha's saṃbhogakāya is a non-analogy taken as an analogy, and cannot be spoken of definitively. Third, from "Due to these causes and conditions, I speak of various analogies..." downward concludes the previous second [part], taking advantage of the phrasing. Fourth, from "Or there are causes and conditions under which it can also be an analogy..." downward concludes the previous first [part].