成唯識論述記 3.251

3.251

述曰：此述正義。由此定應現身所居，及當生者，本識變為現所居界及當生界。當生界者，一云次生者變，遠者不變；二云可應生者變，隨其凡聖可生者變。由此即無成劫之時，先器成過，以上界有情當生者變故。既爾，無色當生下時，亦變為下，何故《瑜伽論》五十一云：彼識不緣下外器相？彼約不定境，亦不相違，謂緣種子即是定境，緣外器等，此即不定，以無色聖者不緣器故，不生下故。問：聖定不生無間之處，應不變為彼所居處，長壽天亦爾。答：此問言即現所居地界故得。若爾，何故說一切言？

The Commentary states: This states the correct doctrine. Therefore, definitely only the current place of residence of one's present body and the place where one will be reborn are transformed by the fundamental consciousness into the realm currently resided in and the realm where one is to be reborn. Concerning the realm where one is to be reborn: one opinion holds that only one who is to be born there in the immediately following life transforms it, while one who is far from doing so does not; a second opinion holds that whoever can or should be reborn there transforms it, depending on the ordinary person or noble one who can be born there. Thereby, at the time of the cosmic period of formation, there is no fault of the vessel world forming beforehand without [inhabitants], because it is transformed by the sentient beings in the upper realms who are to be reborn [there]. Since that is so, when one in the formless realm is to be reborn below, does [their consciousness] also transform into what is below? Why, then, does the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, fascicle fifty-one, say: 'That consciousness does not take as cognitive object the marks of the external vessel below'? That is stated in reference to indeterminate objects, and does not contradict [this], meaning that taking seeds as cognitive object is a determinate object, whereas taking the external vessel and so forth as cognitive object is indeterminate, because noble ones in the formless realm do not take the vessel as cognitive object, since they are not reborn below. Question: Since noble ones definitely are not reborn in the Avīci hell, they should not transform into that place of residence, and the same should hold for the heavens of long life. Answer: This inquiry is resolved because it is the realm of the ground currently resided in. If so, why does [the scripture] speak of 'all'?