俱舍論記 26.85

26.85

「諸他心智至如應容有」者，述己宗也。又解：此文亦答前問，顯他心智不知他心所緣、能緣。諸他心智有決定相，謂唯能取欲、色界繫及非所繫。欲界等言，簡異無色，不知上故。他相續，簡自身，不知自故。現在，簡過、未，以彼過、未無作用故。同類，謂法分知法分、類分知類分、有漏知有漏、無漏知無漏等，此即簡異類。心心所法簡色等，以不能知色等境故。一簡二等，謂但知一，非二等故。實簡於假，以他心智不知假故。自相簡共相，以不知共相故，如識了別名自相等。無漏他心智雖作共相，別觀一法不觀多法，故亦名自相。以此等法為所緣境作道四行故，與無願三摩地相應，不作餘行相。空、無相三摩地不相應，盡、無生所不攝，他心智是見性，此是息求非見性故。苦、集、滅智如前已簡。為盡、無生亦通道諦，故復重簡。不在見道，以速疾故、非容預故。不在無間道，以斷障故、非容預故。餘修道中加行、解脫、勝進道中，如其所應容可有故。

Regarding [the text from] “All knowledges of another's mind” up to “as appropriate they are admissible”: this states their own tenet. Another explanation: This text also answers the previous question, showing that knowledge of another's mind does not know the other mind's object or cognizing aspect. All knowledges of another's mind have determinate characteristics: they can only grasp what is bound to the desire realm, the form realm, and what is unbound. The words 'desire realm' and so on exclude the formless realm, because it does not know what is higher. 'Another continuum' excludes one's own continuum, because it does not know oneself. 'Present' excludes past and future, because the past and future lack activity. 'Of the same category' means that the dharma category knows the dharma category, the category of subsequent knowledge knows the category of subsequent knowledge, sāsrava knows sāsrava, anāsrava knows anāsrava, and so on; this excludes different categories. 'Citta and caitta dharmas' excludes matter and so forth, because it cannot know objects such as matter. 'One' excludes two and so on, meaning it only knows one, not two or more. 'Real' excludes the provisional, because knowledge of another's mind does not know the provisional. 'Specific characteristic' excludes common characteristics, because it does not know common characteristics, just as consciousness's discerning is called its specific characteristic, etc. Although undefiled knowledge of another's mind forms common characteristics, it distinctly observes a single dharma and does not observe multiple dharmas, so it is also called a specific characteristic. Taking these dharmas as its object, it forms the four aspects of the path; therefore it is associated with the wishless samādhi, and does not form the other aspects. It is unassociated with the empty and signless samādhis, and is not subsumed under the knowledge of exhaustion or knowledge of non-arising, because knowledge of another's mind is of the nature of view, whereas these are the cessation of seeking and not of the nature of view. The knowledges of suffering, origin, and cessation have already been excluded previously. Because the knowledges of exhaustion and non-arising also pertain to the truth of the path, they are excluded again. It is not in the path of seeing, because [the path of seeing] is rapid and not leisurely. It is not in the uninterrupted path, because [that path] severs hindrances and is not leisurely. In the remaining path of cultivation—within the preparatory, liberation, and special progress paths—they are admissible as appropriate.