大般涅槃經集解 9.152

9.152

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.'