涅槃經遊意 1.182

1.182

今明皆不然。若言佛果定有色者，則應長短質像，則有處所；若定無色，亦應無心。何者？色是心依因，既無有色，心何所依？若言色是頑礙，故須離者；心是無常，亦應須離。又心是取相之法，亦應須除。若轉取相心為無相心者，亦應轉頑礙之色為無礙色。又歎如來無色應為色者，亦無心應為心。

We now explain that none of these is correct. If one says that the Buddha-fruit definitively has form, it would then have length, shortness, and material shape, and would thus have a physical location; if it definitively lacked form, it should also lack mind. Why? Form is the support and cause of mind; since there is no form, what would mind rely on? If one says form is inert and obstructive and therefore must be abandoned, mind is impermanent and should likewise be abandoned. Furthermore, mind is a dharma that grasps characteristics, and should also be eliminated. If one transforms the mind that grasps characteristics into the signless mind, one should likewise transform inert and obstructive form into unobstructed form. Moreover, if one praises the Tathāgata as having no form yet responding as form, he also has no mind yet responds as mind.