瑜伽師地論略纂 14.71

14.71

論云「諸名所攝與心相應所餘蘊法，當言率爾起耶？尋求耶？決定耶」等者，此中間意，謂諸心所是不相應之餘蘊耶？此法為率爾心時起，為乃至決定心時起？答云：隨心即起。此中何故唯言前三心，不言第四、五？一云：略准亦在問中。又前心性決定唯無記，遍行、別境、不定四通三性。或有得俱起餘善、煩惱等，若起善惡心，必與此法俱，此義決定。其遍行等不唯一性決定故，此中唯問此故，故唯問前三心，不問後二。此中，法師以諸門或位次起是何心是，或亂生、不亂生，或通三性等，或隣次久遠。如是義，如第一卷抄，思之可知。

Regarding the treatise's statement, 'Should the remaining aggregate factors subsumed under name and associated with the mind be said to arise precipitously? Inquiringly? Decisively?' etc.: the meaning of the question here is, are these mental factors the remaining aggregates that are unassociated? Do these dharmas arise at the time of the precipitous mind, or even down to the time of the decisive mind? The answer states: they arise following along with the mind. Why does it only mention the first three minds here, and not the fourth and fifth? One explanation says: it is briefly omitted by analogy, being implicitly contained within the question. Furthermore, the nature of the preceding minds is definitively non-defined alone, whereas the universal, particular, and indeterminate [factors]—all four—extend to the three natures. Or, some may arise concurrently with other wholesome [factors], afflictions, and the like: if a wholesome or unwholesome mind arises, it must be concurrent with these dharmas—this principle is definitive. Since the universals and the like are not definitively of one nature alone, it is only this that is asked about here; therefore, it only asks about the first three minds and does not ask about the latter two. Here, the Dharma Master examines through various doors whether they arise sequentially in that mind, or arise in disorder or without disorder, or extend to the three natures, or are immediately adjacent or distant. Such principles can be understood by contemplating them as in the notes on the first fascicle.