俱舍論記 2.57

2.57

「餘二分別至諸念為體」者，問：尋性分別，此事可然。於餘心所，何故念、慧名為分別，非餘心所？解云：餘心所法非似順尋，唯二似順，故不說餘。故《正理》云「夫分別者，推求行相，故說尋為自性分別。簡擇、明記行似順尋，故分別名亦通慧、念。」問：餘心所法與尋相應，應似順尋。何非似順？解云：若據相應同性義邊，皆似順尋。若據似尋順尋分別義邊，即非似順，故不說餘。

Regarding "The remaining two conceptualizations... are in essence mental instances of mindfulness": Question: That the nature of reflection is conceptualization—this may be accepted. But among the remaining mental factors, why are only mindfulness and discernment called conceptualizations, and not the other mental factors? Explanation: The other mental factors do not resemble or conform to reflection; only these two resemble and conform, so the others are not mentioned. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "Now, conceptualization has the active mode of seeking; hence reflection is called intrinsic conceptualization. Discrimination and clear recollection have active modes resembling and conforming to reflection, so the name 'conceptualization' also extends to discernment and mindfulness." Question: Since the other mental factors are associated with reflection, they ought to resemble and conform to reflection. Why do they not resemble and conform? Explanation: In terms of association and having a common nature, they all resemble and conform to reflection. But in terms of resembling reflection and conforming to reflection as conceptualization, they do not resemble and conform; hence the others are not mentioned.