說無垢稱經疏 4.522

4.522

贊曰：此第二答。妄執有身相，此身相都無，名身相離。離者空也，非此身相應。因緣假有如影像身，此身非無病與身相應，以身語業濟眾生故。前答實事，病非色相；今答隨眾生故，亦身相應。或五識有名身相應，非色處色，亦不相違。妄執有心相，此心相都無，名心相離。離者空也，非此心相應。因緣假有如幻化心，此心非無，病與心相應，常以意業利眾生故。舊身但有非相應義，無亦相應。心標非相應，解有相應義，細勘方知。空理真諦非二相應，俗二相應。應理二性非二相應，依他二相應。

Commentary: This is the second answer. Falsely grasping a bodily characteristic, this bodily characteristic is completely absent, which is called 'separated from the body.' 'Separated' means empty; it is not associated with this body. As a conditioned nominal existence like an image-body, this body is not non-existent, and the illness is associated with the body, because one rescues sentient beings through bodily and vocal actions. The previous answer concerned real affairs: the illness is not a material characteristic; the present answer conforms to sentient beings: it is also associated with the body. Or, because the five consciousnesses exist, it is called associated with the body, which is not form in the sense of visible forms, and so there is no contradiction. Falsely grasping a mental characteristic, this mental characteristic is completely absent, which is called 'separated from the mind.' 'Separated' means empty; it is not associated with this mind. As a conditioned nominal existence like an illusory, magically created mind, this mind is not non-existent, and the illness is associated with the mind, because one constantly benefits sentient beings through mental actions. The older version only has the sense of not being associated with the body, not of also being associated. In regard to the mind, it states that it is not associated, while the explanation contains the sense of being associated; only upon careful examination can this be known. In the true truth of the Śūnyatā doctrine, it is not associated with either; in the conventional, it is associated with both. In the Yukti doctrine, with respect to the two natures [i.e., imagined], it is not associated with either; with respect to the dependent [nature], it is associated with both.