瑜伽師地論略纂 8.33

8.33

論解「往還正知而住」中，有四句義：一、自往還正知；二、所應往還正知；三、往還知時；四、如是如是應往還。此中，第二所應往還及第四如是如是應往還，何別？即下重釋中云「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；後第四設應往還家，自有軌則、禮式可往還，無即不可往還。以此為異。　其下覩瞻等門皆有四，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。

In the treatise's explanation of "dwelling in clear comprehension when going and returning," there are four clauses of meaning: first, clear comprehension of one's own going and returning; second, clear comprehension of where one ought to go and return; third, knowing the proper time for going and returning; fourth, going and returning in such-and-such a manner. Here, what is the distinction between the second, "where one ought to go and return," and the fourth, "in such-and-such a manner"? Namely, in the later re-explanation it says: "One should go and return in accordance with the bodily movements, behavioral guidelines, ceremonial etiquette, and deportment of their specific category"; this is precisely what distinguishes it from the former. As for the second, it is merely that the members of that household and so forth are those to whom one may go and return, whereas five kinds of households are those to whom one must not go and return; whereas as for the latter, the fourth, even granted that it is a household to which one ought to go and return, if they naturally possess behavioral guidelines and ceremonial etiquette, one may go and return, but if they lack them, one must not go and return. This is the difference. The headings below, such as "looking and gazing," each have four [clauses]. Following this model, the second clause in all cases agrees with whether that household is permissible or not permissible, while the fourth clause is able to reveal departure from [defects] within what is permissible in the second clause.