瑜伽師地論略纂 1.21

1.21

第四、釋妨難者，五識云身相應，意識不說身相應，並不言心地、識地，並如《釋論》出體中解。第一問：何故五合立地，與意離立？亦如《釋》解。然《釋論》云五識同無分別，意地翻此，豈第八識亦分別體？由此更為下翻釋。第二問：何故但言有尋、無尋地，不言有定、無定地，而言三摩呬多及非耶？答：三摩呬多，此云等引，體通有心、無心，不須言有。其尋等唯是一不定心所，不通無心，彼以有言表通五蘊故。

Fourth, resolving objections and difficulties: The five consciousnesses are said to be 'associated with the body', whereas the mental consciousness is not said to be 'associated with the body', and they are not called 'mind-bhūmi' or 'consciousness-bhūmi'—all of this is explained in the commentary's exposition of the essences. The first question: Why are the five combined to establish a bhūmi, while set apart from the mind? This is also as explained in the commentary. However, the commentary says that the five consciousnesses are alike in being non-conceptual, whereas the mind-bhūmi is the reverse of this; could the eighth consciousness also have conceptualization as its essence? Because of this, it is further explained in reverse below. The second question: Why does it only speak of the bhūmis with searching and without searching, and not speak of bhūmis with concentration and without concentration, but instead says samāhita and non-[samāhita]? Answer: Samāhita is translated here as 'equipoise'; its essence encompasses both having mind and lacking mind, so it does not need to say 'having'. As for searching and the like, they are merely a single indeterminate mental factor, not encompassing mindlessness; using the word 'having' there indicates that it encompasses the five aggregates.