瑜伽論記 4.244

4.244

The words "notion of formlessness" mean mental engagement through resolution relying on formless meditation. "External" means mental engagement through resolution excluding the sense faculties such as the eyes, regarding the remaining forms. In fact, the first two both contemplate internal and external, though with secondary and primary emphases. However, simply wishing to show that the second liberation has already separated from desire for form, it is distinctly designated as "internally having the notion of formlessness"; as the first liberation has not separated from desire for form, and form exists both internally and externally, it merely says "having form." What harm is there to the principle if it is called "internally having form"?