維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.75

9.75

二、「如無」下，正釋，二：初、釋無色界色譬，二：初、正釋。「舍利毘曇」者，此亦小宗自說有色也。然在小宗，終以無色無色為是，而以說有色者為不了義。故《婆沙》中毘婆闍婆提說無色有色，若育多提婆說無色無色，何者是耶？答。佛經中說「名色緣識」，亦應有色。又餘經說「壽燸識三常相隨逐」，無色既有壽識，云何無燸，又餘比丘說餘四陰，說識有去來生死者，不應爾。如從欲界生無色界，經二四六八萬劫斷色後生欲界還生色者，入無餘界應更與行相續。欲令無此過故，說無色有色。言無色者，此依何經？答：經云「解脫寂靜過色入無色者」，故知無色。又云「色離欲，無色離一切入涅槃」，故知無色。此二云何通？何者為勝？答：說無者勝。說有者云何通？答：未了義故。問：引經云何通？答：欲有名色，無色無也。欲有三法隨逐，無色無也。色續論者，四句分別：無色續色，色續無色，色續色，無色續無色，故知無咎。今以小乘自說有色，義符今喻，所以引之。

Second, under "Like the non-form," directly explaining has two parts: first, explaining the simile of form in the formless realm, which has two parts: first, directly explaining. Regarding "Śāri[putra]-abhidharma": this is also the Lesser Vehicle's own teaching that there is form. However, within the Lesser Vehicle, in the end they take the formlessness of the formless [realm] to be correct, and regard the teaching that there is form as non-definitive meaning. Thus in the Vibhāṣā, the Vibhajyavādin says that the formless has form, while Yuktadeva says that the formless is without form; which one is correct? Answer: The Buddha's sūtra says "name-and-form conditions consciousness," so there should also be form. Furthermore, another sūtra says "life-span, warmth, and consciousness, these three always accompany one another"; since the formless has life-span and consciousness, how could it lack warmth? Furthermore, other monks say of the remaining four aggregates, stating that consciousness has transmigrating birth and death, which should not be so. For example, being born from the desire realm into the formless realm, passing through twenty, forty, sixty, or eighty thousand kalpas with form severed, and later being born back into the desire realm to generate form again: [if so,] entering the realm without remainder would again have to continue with formations. Wishing to keep this fault from occurring, they say the formless has form. As for saying there is no form, based on which sūtra is this? Answer: The sūtra says: "Liberated and tranquil, passing beyond form and entering the formless"; hence we know there is no form. It also says: "Detached from desire regarding form, detached from all regarding the formless, one enters nirvāṇa"; hence we know there is no form. How are these two reconciled? Which is superior? Answer: The explanation of non-existence is superior. How is the explanation of existence reconciled? Answer: Because it is non-definitive meaning. Question: Citing the sūtras, how is it reconciled? Answer: The desire [realm] has name-and-form, while the formless does not. The desire [realm] has the three dharmas accompanying one another, while the formless does not. Regarding the treatise on the continuation of form, there is a fourfold analysis: formless continues form, form continues formless, form continues form, formless continues formless; hence we know there is no fault. Now, because the Lesser Vehicle itself states that there is form, its meaning accords with the present simile, which is why it is cited.