瑜伽論記 4.275

4.275

三、廢立者，論自解說，瑜伽又說，然由所依真如遍滿能依色非色，亦復遍滿能依之中，所依造色遍滿故，能依造色亦遍滿，唯說能依中實顯色遍滿不說假顯形亦遍滿，唯說所依實觸遍滿不說能依假觸亦遍滿，既說所觀色境空遍滿亦說能觀識境遍滿，餘非遍滿故非遍處。然涅槃經中第三十一說：除火取無所有處者，事火外道以火為天說火體遍增，彼執故對彼機除火遍處，無所有處有觀察時，觀識遍無少分所有，所無境遍亦名遍處，今諸論中，依極自在已方修遍處觀無少所有境，非必觀所無識遍一切故不立遍處，佛於彼假名於此實說故。

Third, establishing and omitting: The treatise itself explains this, and the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] also states: Because the supporting tathatā is all-pervading, the supported form and non-form are also all-pervading. Among the supported dharmas, because the primary matter that is the support is all-pervading, the derived matter supported by it is also all-pervading. It only states that the real visible forms among derived matter are all-pervading, not that nominal visible forms or figure-forms are also all-pervading; it only states that the real tangible objects among the primary matter are all-pervading, not that derived nominal tangible objects are also all-pervading. Since it states that the contemplated objective realm of form and space is all-pervading, it also states that the contemplating cognitive realm of consciousness is all-pervading; others are not all-pervading, hence they are not totality-bases. However, the thirty-first fascicle of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'Removing fire and taking the station of nothingness.' This was because non-Buddhists who worshipped fire regarded fire as deity and taught that the essence of fire pervades and increases; targeting their grasping, the fire totality-base was omitted for their capacity. When the station of nothingness is contemplated, one observes that consciousness is totally devoid of even the slightest thing; since the non-existent cognitive object is all-pervading, it is also named a totality-base. Now in the treatises, it is only after attaining supreme mastery that one cultivates the totality-bases to contemplate the cognitive object of having not the slightest existence; it is not necessary to contemplate that the non-existent consciousness pervades everything, so it is not established as a totality-base. The Buddha spoke nominally in that [sūtra], whereas here it is taught according to the real fact.