大般涅槃經集解 9.152

9.152

案僧亮曰：樹譬佛，影譬歸依。無樹無影，無佛無依也。有樹無影者，闇中有樹無影，佛雖在而不現，則不成歸依也。法瑤曰：明有常理故得有歸依義耳，如有樹則有影也。僧宗曰：相承解云，有能歸之心，必有所歸之理；此解迦葉之難乃為便也，就文又有不便。舊釋此樹譬真法身，影譬應身；於前文為便，於難為不便也。此二釋各參一邊，未為愜盡，並不消文意。今云有歸依者，正言極果妙有是常，則有歸依之德。若無此德，則有義亦壞。是故迦葉就影為難，欲使無歸依之德也。智秀曰：能歸之心，終能成佛。故以樹譬歸依之心，影譬所成之佛也，故云因樹則有影。

Sengliang comments: The tree exemplifies the Buddha, and the shadow exemplifies refuge. If there were no tree, there would be no shadow; if there were no Buddha, there would be no refuge. As for 'there being a tree but no shadow', in darkness there is a tree without a shadow: though the Buddha is present, he is not manifest, and thus taking refuge is not completed. Fayao says: This clarifies that because there is an eternal principle, the meaning of refuge can exist, just as where there is a tree, there is a shadow. Sengzong says: The transmitted lineage explains: 'Where there is a mind capable of taking refuge, there must be a principle to be taken refuge in.' This explanation is convenient for answering Kāśyapa's objection, yet within the text it also has inconveniences. The old interpretation had it that this tree exemplifies the true dharmakāya, and the shadow exemplifies the responsive body (nirmāṇakāya); this was convenient for the preceding text, but inconvenient for answering the objection. These two interpretations each grasp one side and are not exhaustive or fully satisfactory, failing to elucidate the meaning of the text. Now, when it says there is refuge, it specifically states that the supreme fruit, the wondrous existence, is permanent, and therefore it has the virtue of refuge. If it lacked this virtue, then the meaning of existence would also be ruined. Therefore, Kāśyapa based his objection on the shadow, seeking to imply that it lacks the virtue of refuge. Zhixiu says: The mind capable of taking refuge can ultimately attain buddhahood. Therefore, the tree exemplifies the mind of refuge, and the shadow exemplifies the Buddha that is realized; hence it says, 'Dependent on a tree, there is a shadow.'