This one is confusing and I may be wrong.

Anyway, here goes my stab at a complicated Buddhist topic that I’m probably not qualified to address. It’s regarding the pattern I noticed after reading many suttas in translation from Pali to English. The Buddha often answers questions in four parts. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive perspective on all questions. The method is like a logic puzzle, with time and space twisted once as a Mobius strip (see link). That analogy may not make sense right now, but you will see that the Buddha’s answers to questions are as beautiful and confusing as the Mobius strip. Let us say that the principle question for simplicity is “Am I a dog?” The four part answer is: 1. Yes I am a dog, 2. No I am not a dog, 3. I am both a dog and not a dog, 4. I am neither a dog nor am I not a dog. Then one fills in the cases in which each statement holds truth. Even though the four statements contradict each other, they each hold truth in certain contexts. Contextualism is essential to Buddhist interpretation of mind’s understanding of reality. The fourth statement is often the most confusing one, and can sometimes only be applied in such a way as to help understand that all concepts of all kinds are incomplete and subject to breaking down. I’m not sure if this is enough explanation here on this topic, but it’s a start.