大般涅槃經義記 2.126

2.126

「若能於」下，解釋第二無無常義，先順、後反。順中，初法、次喻、後合。法中，「若能於是不思修常想者則有歸處」，明有初始歸向之心，常住三歸是其所向，故有歸處。准前應言禁戒具足能得聲聞、緣覺等果，略不具論。喻中，「如樹」喻上初段如來體常，「則有樹影」喻此後段三歸義常。依佛常體開此三歸攝人之用，故如因樹則有樹影。合中「如來亦爾」總合，「有常法故」合前樹也，「則有歸處」合有樹影，「非是無常」總結為常。下反釋之，「若言如來是無常者」舉彼異見，「則非世人所歸依處」辯過以非，無常滅去，誰為物歸？

From "If one can regarding this..." onwards, he explains the second meaning of non-impermanence: first directly, and afterwards reversely. In the direct, first is the doctrine, next the analogy, and afterwards the application. In the doctrine, "If one can regarding this inconceivability cultivate the thought of permanence, there will be a place of refuge" clarifies that there is an initial mind of turning toward refuge; the constantly abiding three refuges are what he turns toward, and therefore there is a place of refuge. Judging from the earlier passage, it should state that the prohibitive precepts are complete and one can attain the fruits of a śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and so forth, but for brevity it does not discuss this in full. In the analogy, "Just as a tree..." compares to the first section above on the permanence of the Tathāgata's essence; "...then there is the tree's shadow" compares to this latter section on the permanence of the meaning of the three refuges. Relying on the Buddha's permanent essence, he opens this function of the three refuges in gathering in beings; hence it is just as, due to a tree, there is a tree's shadow. In the application, "The Tathāgata is also like this" generally applies it; "Because there is a permanent dharma" applies to the tree earlier; "then there is a place of refuge" applies to having a tree's shadow; "not being impermanent" summarizes it as permanent. Below, he explains it reversely: "If one says that the Tathāgata is impermanent" adduces that divergent view; "then he is not a place of refuge for the people of the world" distinguishes the fault by showing it to be wrong—if he extinguishes and passes away through impermanence, who would serve as a refuge for beings?