成唯識論了義燈 2.165

2.165

釋應無色時，至此云何然。疏：自往覆乃至云，我義心法通能厭，即說心法名無色，色法唯所厭，故說心種名無心。此所加答應云：心法通能厭故。說心種名無心；色法唯所厭，即說心法名無色。即是心法通能厭，唯有心種名無心；色法唯所厭，唯有心法名無色。此更次述，重顯前文，更助解：厭色入無色，心為能厭名無色；厭心入無心，能厭心種名無心。汝既厭心入無心，不於能厭名無心，別立非色非心名無心；厭色入無色，不於能厭立無色，別有非色非心名無色。厭色入無色，即於能厭之心名無色；厭心入無心，即於能厭心種名無心。

In explaining 'it should be formless, down to how can this be so': The Commentary: From its own alternating debate down to saying, 'In my doctrine, mental dharmas can generally revulse, hence mental dharmas are called formless; form dharmas are solely what is revulsed from, hence the seed of mind is called mindless.' The added reply here should say: because mental dharmas can generally revulse, the seed of mind is called mindless; form dharmas are solely what is revulsed from, so mental dharmas are called formless. That is, mental dharmas can generally revulse, and only the seed of mind is called mindless; form dharmas are solely what is revulsed from, and only mental dharmas are called formless. This further recounts and re-clarifies the previous text, further aiding the explanation: Revulsing from form to enter the formless, the mind acts as the revulser and is called formless; revulsing from mind to enter mindless states, the revulsing seed of mind is called mindless. You, since revulsing from mind to enter mindless states, do not name the revulser mindless, but separately posit that which is neither form nor mind as mindless; revulsing from form to enter the formless, you do not posit formless upon the revulser, but say there is separately that which is neither form nor mind as formless. Revulsing from form to enter the formless, it is named formless precisely upon the revulsing mind; revulsing from mind to enter mindless states, it is named mindless precisely upon the revulsing seed of mind.