瑜伽論記 15.214

15.214

三云：緣先世智曾所觀察等者，辨緣境門，此有二說。一云，緣緣見道前煖等曾所觀察欲界下色無色上二地煩惱即苦集諦，及二謂上安立諦境即滅道諦，為二增上也。又解：緣前真見道故名曾所觀察，以放真見道故，緣下上二地及二地中所有增上安立四諦之境也。以此故知順勝友義，彼人云以前二心緣下界人法執，第三心緣上二界人法執，故名邊遣也。此相見道放立故然也。又此師釋，人執斷下品時亦斷法執下品，斷法執中品亦斷人執中品，此中影略故以人執為下品法執為中品，但約執心為論，故唯或說一也，又但如人法相望為下上也，非以一一自為上下也。何以如此者？以同一種生故，故相望為下上也。

The third says: "Observing what was previously examined by worldly knowledge..." and so forth: this distinguishes the gateway of the observed object. Here there are two explanations. One says: it observes what was previously examined prior to the path of seeing in the stages of heat and so forth, namely the afflictions of the two stages—the lower desire realm and the upper form and formless realms—which are the truths of suffering and origination; and twofold, meaning the objective spheres of the upper posited truths, namely the truths of cessation and the path, as the two predominant factors. Another interpretation: it observes the preceding true path of seeing, hence it is called "previously examined"; modeling upon the true path of seeing, it observes the lower and upper two stages as well as the objective spheres of the predominant posited four truths within the two stages. From this, one knows it conforms to the doctrine of Jinamitra: he says that the first two minds observe the graspings at persons and dharmas in the lower realm, and the third mind observes the graspings at persons and dharmas in the upper two realms, and therefore it is called "marginally dispelling." This is because the path of seeing in its semblant aspects is established by modeling on it. Furthermore, this master explains that when grasping at a person is severed at the inferior grade, grasping at dharmas is also severed at the inferior grade; when grasping at dharmas is severed at the middling grade, grasping at a person is also severed at the middling grade. Here, by elliptical abbreviation, grasping at a person is treated as inferior and grasping at dharmas as middling, which is discussed only with respect to the grasping mind; hence sometimes only one is mentioned. Moreover, it is only in the mutual relation of person and dharmas that they are lower and upper, not that each one in itself constitutes lower and upper. Why is it like this? Because they arise from the same seed, they are lower and upper in relation to each other.