成唯識論掌中樞要 2.152

2.152

若就相應及就離欲建立三地，攝法不盡，亦大雜亂。雖言有尋有伺等地，唯是有心，此就一門麁相辨地。於此門中唯說第二靜慮已上無尋無伺地中無想定、無想生、滅盡定，名無心地；餘一切位名有心地。後有四門同、異建立，如後當說。雖言此中由離尋、伺欲故，說名無尋無伺地，然唯說彼第二靜慮已上諸地必定已離尋、伺欲故，不言已離尋、伺欲者下地諸法，亦得說名無尋無伺。若如是者，未離下地尋、伺欲者，上地諸法亦應說名有尋伺等，如是建立，成大雜亂。是故此三唯就界地上、下建立。

If one established the three levels with respect to association and detachment from desire, it would not completely subsume the dharmas and would also lead to great confusion. Although it is said that the level with investigation and with analysis and the like are exclusively with mind, this distinguishes the levels with respect to coarse marks in a single approach. In this approach, only the absorption without conceptualization, birth without conceptualization, and the absorption of cessation in the level without investigation and without analysis from the second dhyāna upward are called levels without mind; all other states are called levels with mind. Later there are four approaches establishing similarity and difference, as will be explained later. Although it is said: 'Here, because of being separated from desire regarding investigation and analysis, it is called the level without investigation and without analysis,' yet this only speaks of those levels from the second dhyāna upward as definitely having separated from desire regarding investigation and analysis; it does not say that dharmas of lower levels of one who has separated from desire regarding investigation and analysis can also be called without investigation and without analysis. If it were so, then for one who has not separated from desire regarding investigation and analysis of the lower levels, dharmas of higher levels should also be called having investigation and analysis, and so forth; establishing it like this would produce great confusion. Therefore, these three are established solely with respect to the higher and lower realms and levels.