成唯識論述記 7.59

7.59

述曰：第三安惠謂前不然。不定四後方有此二各二等言故，非解前染法。應言初一「二」者，顯二種二：一悔、眠二；二、尋、伺二。何以知者？梵言特縛炎、特縛曳別，其特縛炎但名為二：即一名身中目一種二，汎言二也，即是一種二。今梵本言特縛曳者，即二名身中目二種二義。故令一種二言顯二種二，與前特縛炎別。不爾，有何別因？一種二言目二種二，聲囀別故。

The Commentary states: In the third [interpretation], Sthiramati (Ānhui) asserts that the previous one is not correct. Because the phrase 'the two are each twofold' occurs only after the four indeterminate factors, it is not explaining the preceding defiled dharmas. One should say that the first 'two' indicates two kinds of 'two': first, the two of remorse and sleep; second, the two of investigation and evaluation. How is this known? In Sanskrit, dvayam and dvaye are distinct. Dvayam merely means 'two': within a single noun it denotes one kind of 'two', referring generally to two, which is just one single pair. Now the Sanskrit text reads dvaye, which within a dual noun denotes the meaning of two kinds of 'two'. Therefore, a single expression of 'two' reveals two kinds of 'two', differing from the earlier dvayam. If it were not so, what other reason would there be? A single word 'two' denotes two kinds of 'two' because the declensions (vibhakti) are distinct.