成唯識論演祕 2.463

2.463

Examination: Looking at the preceding explanations, although all have reason, none has exhausted the objection. Now I assist with two interpretations: First, in our mindless attainment, that which is able to revile is absent, and the mindless is nominally established based on the seeds of mind; in the formless [attainment], the mind that can revile does not cease, and the formless is not established based on the seeds of matter. In your formless attainment, that which is able to revile remains, and the formless can be real without depending on anything else. Since in the mindless, that which is able to revile is said to be absent, the mindless should be nominal and established in dependence on other things; because that school states that what is neither matter nor mind is itself the substance of the attainment and does not say it is nominally established in dependence on others, this objection was made. Second, the formless attainment is merely used temporarily to suppress the other, without putting the other's defense to rest. Those who grasp the intent can understand this through reflection. Therefore, there is the second refutation showing that the nominal can obstruct while the real cannot.