成唯識論了義燈 2.165

2.165

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.