大般涅槃經義記 3.24

3.24

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].