俱舍論記 1.180

1.180

「此釋不然至影必隨滅」者，難。本以變礙解釋色名，體無變礙不應名色。又約喻難，影依於樹，樹滅影隨滅。無表依於表，表滅無表不滅。滅既不同，色寧同彼？又《正理》破云「此不應理。隨心轉色不從表生，應非色故。」

"This explanation is incorrect, […] the shadow must necessarily perish along with it": This is an objection. Originally, the name 'matter' was explained through transformation and resistance; that whose substance lacks transformation and resistance should not be called matter. Further, objecting through the analogy: a shadow depends on a tree; when the tree perishes, the shadow perishes along with it. Unmanifest matter depends on manifest matter; when manifest matter perishes, unmanifest matter does not perish. Since their cessation is not the same, how could its materiality be the same as that? Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra refutes it: 'This is unreasonable. Matter that conforms to the mind (cittānuvartin) does not arise from manifest matter, so it would not be matter.'