大般涅槃經義記 5.212

5.212

第二對中，先破第七遮故有我，於中有二：一以佛遮破其有我、二以外道不遮破我。前中，初先牒其所立，「遮故知無」反其所立。下廣顯之，於中初明有我不遮，「如調婆達終不言非」舉事類顯，「我亦如是，我終不遮」當法正辯，下明有遮定知無我。下就不遮明無我中，「若以遮故知有我者」牒其所立，「汝今不遮，定應無我」即取其義反以破之。下破第八伴故有我，先牒所立，「以無伴故，應無有我」略翻其言，良以真我無有伴故，有伴之者應無有我。下廣顯之，於中先明真我無伴，「有法無伴謂如來」等類以顯之，「我亦如是，實無伴者」正明如來真我無伴，「以是義」下結伴非我。

Within the second pair, it first refutes the seventh, that there is a self because of prohibition. Therein are two points: first, refuting their [notion of] an existing self through the Buddha's prohibition; second, refuting the self through the outsider's non-prohibition. In the former, it first repeats what they assert; "because of prohibition, one knows non-existence" reverses what they assert. Below, it extensively clarifies it. Therein, it first explains that if there were a self, there would be no prohibition: "Just as Devadatta never speaks of wrong" adduces a case by analogy to reveal it; "I am also like this, I would never prohibit" directly explains the dharma itself; below, it clarifies that since there is prohibition, one definitely knows there is no self. Below, in explaining non-self in terms of non-prohibition: "If by prohibition one knows there is a self" repeats what they assert; "You now do not prohibit, so there definitively should be no self" takes their meaning and reverses it to refute them. Next, it refutes the eighth, that there is a self because of a companion: first repeating what they assert, "Because of having no companion, there should be no self" briefly turns their words back on them: truly, because the true self has no companion, that which has a companion should have no self. Below, it clarifies it extensively. Therein, it first explains that the true self has no companion: "There is a dharma that has no companion, namely the Tathāgata" and so forth analogises to clarify it; "I am also like this, truly having no companion" directly explains that the Tathāgata's true self has no companion; from "By this principle" onward, it concludes that having a companion is non-self.