瑜伽論記 13.137

13.137

備云：此文即順護法解，若他身即無執受故。基師述護法云：若無色界第八不緣下器者，何故外器文前預簡云此於有色界，故知無色界緣下外器。護法云：此簡內執文，若有色界有種有根及根所依，無色唯有種子無根及扶根塵，即內執受半有半無須簡色，外執受中一切無色界無，何須致簡，故下膏炷喻，若無色有外器，無內炷外有光明故知簡別，不隨汝意，第八俱五數所變他身等眾生數非眾生數者，即眾生數。若爾，何故非異熟，說根為識依也。亦是，然是未依本生故。

Bei says: This text accords precisely with Dharmapāla's explanation: if it is another's body, there is no appropriation. Master Ji states Dharmapāla's view: If the eighth consciousness of the Formless Realm does not take the lower vessel as an object, why does the text on the external vessel beforehand set up the restriction, 'this is in the Form Realm'? Thus we know that the Formless Realm takes the lower external vessel as an object. Dharmapāla says: This restricts the text on internal appropriation. If it is the Form Realm, there are seeds, faculties, and the bases of faculties; the Formless Realm has only seeds and has no faculties or faculty-supporting matter. Thus internal appropriation is partly present and partly absent, so form must be excluded. Among external appropriations, all are absent in the Formless Realm; why would there be a need to set up a restriction? Hence the simile of the oil and wick below: if the Formless had an external vessel, there would be no inner wick yet light on the outside; thus we know it is a differentiation, not following your opinion. As for whether another's body, etc., transformed by the five mental factors associated with the eighth consciousness, is classified as sentient beings or non-sentient beings, it is classified as sentient beings. If so, why is it not a maturation, given that the faculties are spoken of as bases for consciousness? It is indeed, but it is because it is not yet based on original birth.