瑜伽論記 6.296

6.296

此中第二所應往還及第四如是如是應往還何別，即下重釋中三如其色類動止軌則禮式威儀應往還此即與前別。第二但彼家屬等可應往還五種家不可往還。後第四設應往還處自有軌則禮式可往還，無即不可往還，以此為異。其下觀瞻等門皆有四，准此作法，第二句皆同彼家可爾不可爾。第四句能顯第二句可爾中，出離，其解。

What is the difference here between the second, where one should go and return, and the fourth, going and returning in such and such a manner? In the re-explanation below, 'according to their class, the standards of movement and rest, and the etiquette of deportment, one should go and return'—this is precisely what differs from the former. The second refers only to those families, relatives, and so forth that one may go and return to, whereas five kinds of families may not be gone to or returned from. The latter fourth refers to the fact that even if a place is one where one should go and return, if proper rules and etiquette exist, one may go and return, but if not, one may not go and return; this constitutes the distinction. The headings below, such as looking and gazing, all have four [propositions], and following this pattern, the second propositions are all identical in terms of that family being permissible or not permissible. The fourth proposition is able to reveal the departure within the permissibility of the second proposition; that is its explanation.