大般涅槃經義記 9.10

9.10

第三外道立喻救義。「譬如一室燃百千燈」，燈別明通。「我亦如是」，如明遍通。「修善行惡」如燈各別不相雜合。下佛對破。「言我如燈，是義不然」牒以總非。「何以故」下廣顯非義。句別有三：一「明從緣有、隨燈增長，我不如是」不得為喻。二「明從燈出，住在異處，我不如是」不得為喻。三「明與闇俱，我不如是」不與無我同在一處，以是義故不得為喻。文中，初言「明與闇共」略以標舉。「何以」下釋。「如燃一燈照則不了」正論燈明與闇共住，「多燈乃了」舉多顯少。「若初燈破，不須後燈」約初徵後，「若須後燈，知初共住」將後證前。

In the third, the non-Buddhist establishes a simile to rescue his position: "Just as when a single room is lit with hundreds of thousands of lamps," the lamps are distinct while the light is shared throughout; "the self is also like this," like the light pervading throughout; "cultivating good and practicing evil" are distinct and do not intermingle, like the lamps. Below, the Buddha refutes this in response. "To say that the self is like a lamp—this meaning is incorrect": he cites this to reject it generally. From "Why is that?" onward, he demonstrates its incorrectness in detail. The points are distinct in three ways: First, "Light arises from conditions and increases along with the lamp; the self is not like this"—so it cannot serve as a simile. Second, "Light emerges from the lamp and abides in a different place; the self is not like this"—so it cannot serve as a simile. Third, "Light coexists with darkness; the self is not like this"—it does not abide in the same place as non-self; for this reason it cannot serve as a simile. In the text, he first says "Light coexists with darkness" to briefly state the thesis. From "Why?" onward, he explains it. "Just as when a single lamp is lit, the illumination is unclear" properly discusses the lamp's light coexisting with darkness; "only with many lamps is it clear" raises the many to show [the insufficiency of] the few. "If the first lamp dispelled [it], there would be no need for a later lamp": this questions the later [lamp] with respect to the first; "if a later lamp is needed, know that the first coexisted [with darkness]": this adduces the later to prove the former.