成唯識論述記 1.652

1.652

述曰：難色若非色性，應如聲非眼境。量云：汝色應非眼境；非色性故；如彼聲等。此中色等言，即等取自所依三大及餘眼境者，恐有不定過故。又更互作法等一切法，故後言等。問：若難色非眼境，豈不違宗、世間、現量等過？答：彼所執色，通常、無常，是無礙，德句收者。佛法不許有法，既言汝所執色，以別其宗，故無違教、現量等過。

The Commentary states: The objection states that if form is not the nature of form, it should, like sound, not be the cognitive domain of the eye. The syllogism runs: "Your form should not be the cognitive domain of the eye; because it is not of the nature of form; like sound and the rest." In this context, the words "form and the rest" encompass the three great elements that are its own support and the other cognitive domains of the eye, for fear of the fallacy of indeterminacy (anaikāntika). Furthermore, because all phenomena mutually constitute [each other's] dharma and the like, "and the rest" is stated subsequently. Question: If one objects that form is not the cognitive domain of the eye, does this not commit the fallacies of contradicting the school, contradicting the world, contradicting direct perception (pratyakṣa), and so on? Answer: The form posited by them is common to the permanent and impermanent, is non-obstructive, and is subsumed under the category of quality (guṇa-padārtha). The Buddha-Dharma does not accept [such an] entity. Since it says "the form posited by you" to qualify their school, there is no fault of contradicting doctrine, direct perception, and so on.