大般涅槃經集解 5.100

5.100

案慧朗曰：此第三舉譬明無有相之念也。明駿案：自二人傍論以來至此，有三源。前辨常無常義，總拂有為之迹，以顯常住妙本，可請不可請義也。第二拂應身之迹。夫食以資身，若雖食而不食，豈身而是實耶？第三拂應心之迹，寄悅可之，以表無念之念。故因此述成，以遣心迹。

Huilang comments: This is the third [turn], presenting an analogy to clarify that there is no thought that grasps at marks. Mingjun notes: Since the collateral discussion between the two men began up to this point, there are three sources. First, distinguishing the meanings of permanent and impermanent generally brushed away the traces of the conditioned to reveal the wondrous root of eternal presence, which constitutes the meaning of what can and cannot be requested. Second, brushing away the traces of the responsive body (nirmāṇakāya). Food is that which sustains the body; if, although eating, he does not eat, how could the body be real? Third, brushing away the traces of the responsive mind. Relying on gladdening and satisfying him expresses the thought of non-thought. Therefore, relying on this endorsement, the traces of mind are dispelled.