成唯識論掌中樞要 2.164

2.164

此中正思惟若體是尋，通無漏者，何故〈五十七〉二十二根中五根不攝三十七中六法，謂語、業、命、喜、安、捨。故正思惟別即惠根。此師以因果通論，故體即惠，前師此可為正。故尋非無漏，以尋名說之。如三界適悅名樂。《瑜伽》第四云：若無漏界有為定所攝初靜慮，亦名有尋有伺，依尋、伺處法緣真如為境，入此定故，不由分別現行故。故知尋、伺引無漏，無漏引中兩解皆得。若言尋、伺必是分別，而不定說唯屬第三，故通無漏，何不對分別四句分別？以互有寬、狹故。

Here, if the essential nature of right thought is gross investigation and it extends to the uncontaminated, why does fascicle 57 say that among the twenty-two faculties, five faculties do not subsume six dharmas of the thirty-seven [factors of awakening]—namely speech, action, livelihood, joy, pliancy, and equanimity? Therefore, right thought distinctively is the faculty of discernment. Because this master explains cause and effect generally, its essential nature is discernment; the former master can take this as correct. Therefore, gross investigation is not uncontaminated, yet it is designated with the name of gross investigation. Just as the gratification of the three realms is called pleasure. Fascicle 4 of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: if it is the first dhyāna subsumed under conditioned concentration of the uncontaminated realm, it is also called with gross and subtle investigation, because by relying on dharmas in the locus of gross and subtle investigation and taking suchness as its object, one enters this concentration, not because of the active occurrence of discrimination. Therefore, we know that gross and subtle investigation induce the uncontaminated, and in the inducement by the uncontaminated both explanations are admissible. If one says that gross and subtle investigation must be discrimination, yet it is not definitively stated to belong only to the third stage and thus extends to the uncontaminated, why not distinguish gross and subtle investigation from discrimination by a four-cornered analysis? Because they are mutually broader and narrower.