成唯識論演祕 3.280

3.280

詳曰：自斷有監，疏解無違。但言器色由外處故，而得外名，誰言攝彼扶塵色耶？此即想聲，別處轉故。斷依第四，他身豈得同外器耶？論意唯明外器色故，若言但取第四一分，何棄第五？不簡第四，故自斷非。

Deliberation: His own determination has a flaw; the Commentary's explanation does not conflict. It merely says that the matter of the vessel world receives the name "external" on account of being an external āyatana; who said it subsumes that supporting physical matter? This is because the nominal designation applies to a different place. If the determination is based on the fourth, how could other bodies be equated with the external vessel world? Because the intent of the treatise is solely to clarify the matter of the external vessel world. If one says that it only takes a portion of the fourth, why discard the fifth? Without qualifying the fourth, his own determination is incorrect.