瑜伽師地論略纂 15.125

15.125

論非此煩惱緣無漏等，有所緣故，故名為境。此為一釋。第二、緣見境中，但是見道對修道，皆是緣見生滅，除疑一。此緣名一門總分別，見惑餘門別分別故。此中云見斷諸惑，以簡修耶。若爾，滅、道下有漏緣何處門攝？亦是緣見門收，然是總門故。若如前說，何以言見斷等者？此簡修道貪。若俱言貪等，恐濫修道貪等。前苦、集即出所緣諦名已，此是滅、道有漏緣惑，但言見斷，即知簡修，而是滅、道下貪等。

The treatise [indicates that] it is not that these afflictions take the untainted and so forth as cognitive objects, but because there is an objective support, they are called cognitive objects. This is the first interpretation. Second, among cognitive objects that take views as their objects, whenever the path of seeing is contrasted with the path of cultivation, all are production and cessation that take views as their cognitive objects, with the exception of the single [dharma of] doubt. This single gate of taking names as cognitive objects discriminates generally, while the defilements of seeing are discriminated separately through the other gates. In this context, it speaks of all defilements abandoned by seeing in order to distinguish them from [those of] cultivation. If so, under which gate are the tainted-object defilements under cessation and the path subsumed? They are also subsumed under the gate of taking views as cognitive objects, but this is a general gate. If it is as stated before, why does it say "abandoned by seeing," and so forth? This distinguishes them from the greed of the path of cultivation. If it simply spoke of greed and so forth, it was feared that it would be confused with the greed and so forth of the path of cultivation. Earlier, under suffering and origination, the names of the truths taken as cognitive objects were already presented; these are defilements taking tainted objects under cessation and the path, and merely by saying "abandoned by seeing," one knows they are distinguished from cultivation, yet they are greed and so forth under cessation and the path.