瑜伽師地論略纂 13.24

13.24

論云「此於有色界」者，護月云：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？故生無色，緣下外器。護法云：此簡內執受。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，須簡色根。外執受中一切，無色界皆無，何須致簡？故下膏炷喻，若無色有外器，應無內炷，外有光明，故知簡別，不隨汝意。第八俱五數所變化身，眾生數，非眾生數者，即眾生數。若爾，何故非異熟？說根為五識依也亦是，然是未依本生故。

The treatise says, "This, in the realm of form..." Candragupta says: If the eighth in the formless realm does not take the lower receptacle-world as object, why does the text on the external receptacle-world anticipate and specify beforehand, 'This, in the realm of form'? Therefore, one born in the formless realm takes the lower external receptacle-world as object. Dharmapāla says: This specifies internal upātta. In the realm of form, there are seeds, sense-faculties, and the support-bases of the sense-faculties; in the formless realm, there are only seeds, with neither sense-faculties nor the sensory data supporting the sense-faculties. That is, internal upātta is half-present and half-absent, so the physical sense-faculties must be specified. In external upātta, all are absent in the formless realm, so what need would there be to make a specification? Hence the subsequent analogy of the oil and the wick: if the formless realm had an external receptacle-world, there would be light on the outside without an internal wick. Therefore we know the specification does not accord with your view. As for the transformed bodies of the five mental factors associated with the eighth, whether they belong to sentient beings (sattvākhya) or not, they belong to sentient beings. If so, why are they not vipāka? It is said that the sense-faculties serve as supports for the five consciousnesses; they are indeed so, yet they have not yet relied upon the fundamental birth.