瑜伽論記 4.263

4.263

此後三種，若惡好等言皆如初說，後四勝處皆內無色想。然觀外諸色青黃赤白四種有異，此中內有色想內無色想等如解脫中說，前解脫中有色不言內，今言內者，前以設雖於內身見，有色想安立現前未離色染者，以一切色染皆未離故，但言有色而不說內，即以此一切色而為境界，起光明想未出色染故名觀諸色，或通觀內外色不可名觀外色，今此勝處唯觀非根色不觀根色，內有根色故名內有色，與前差別，餘少多等，如文自釋。

In these latter three, the phrases 'whether bad or good' and so forth are all as stated for the first. The latter four stations of mastery all have the ideation of no internal form; however, their contemplation of external forms differs in the four colors of blue, yellow, red, and white. Here, 'ideation of internal form,' 'ideation of no internal form,' and so forth are as explained under the vimokṣas. In the preceding vimokṣas, 'having form' was said without saying 'internal.' The present text says 'internal' because previously, even though one viewed an internal body, the ideation of having form was established and present to one who was not yet detached from the defilement of form; and because one was not yet detached from any defilement of form, it merely said 'having form' without saying 'internal.' Taking all these forms as its objective domain, one produced the ideation of illumination without having emerged from the defilement of form, hence it was called 'contemplating forms'; or alternatively, it comprehensively contemplated internal and external forms, so it could not be called 'contemplating external forms.' The present stations of mastery contemplate only non-sense-faculty forms and do not contemplate sense-faculty forms. Because internally there are sense-faculty forms, it is called 'having internal form.' This is the distinction from the preceding. The remaining points on 'few,' 'many,' and so forth are as explained in the text itself.