大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 61.16

61.16

疏「無色謂無色」者，所引《俱舍》皆是〈定品〉二十八論，下當具引。言「俱舍論中廣破有色」者，論云「皆無色故，立無色名。外難云：此因不成，許有色故。次反徵云：若爾，何故立無色名？彼答云：由彼色微故名無色，如微黃物亦名無黃。論主問云：許彼界中色有何相？若彼唯有身語律儀，身語既無，律儀寧有？又無大種，何以造色？若謂如有無漏律儀。不爾，無漏依有漏大種故，又彼定中亦遮有故。若許於彼有色根身，如何可言彼色微少？若謂於彼身量小故。水中細蟲極微之物亦應名無色，亦身量小不可見故。若謂彼身極清妙故中應有色。若謂彼身清妙中極，應唯有頂得無色名，如定生身有勝劣故。」更有廣破，略知其旨。

Regarding the commentary's phrase "'formless' means without form": the citations from the Abhidharmakośa are all from the twenty-eighth treatise of the "Chapter on Concentration," which will be fully cited below. As for "in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya it extensively refutes the presence of form": the treatise says: "Because all are without form, the name 'formless' is established. An external objection says: 'This reason is not established, because we admit there is form.' Next, turning to query them: 'If so, why is it called formless?' They reply: 'Because that form is subtle, it is called formless, just as something slightly yellow is also called not-yellow.' The treatise master asks: 'What characteristic do you admit the form in that realm has? If that realm only has bodily and vocal restraints, since body and voice do not exist, how could restraint exist? Furthermore, without the great elements, by what could form be made? If you say it is like having untainted restraint—it is not so, because the untainted relies on the tainted great elements, and furthermore it is also precluded from existing in that concentration. If you admit that there is a physical sense-basis body there, how can you say that its form is subtle and scarce? If you say it is because that body's size is small—minute insects in water, being extremely microscopic things, should also be called formless, because their bodies are also small and invisible. If you say that because that body is extremely pure and subtle, there should be form within it; if you say that that body is the most extremely pure and subtle, then only the Peak of Existence should obtain the name formless, since bodies produced by concentration have superior and inferior degrees.'" There are further extensive refutations; this briefly conveys the gist.