俱舍論記 1.210

1.210

「頌曰至以離他性故」者，答。此明總攝，以化地部說他性相應非自性，亦他性相攝非自性，如以戒定慧攝八支正道。彼執不然，若論其體，體相不同。若義相似便相攝者，一切諸法無我理同，竝應相攝。經依相順假說相攝，若就勝義唯攝自體。故《婆沙》五十九云「諸法自性攝自性時，非如以手取食、指捻衣等。然彼各各執持自體令不散壞，故名為攝。於執持義立以攝名，故勝義攝唯攝自性。

"The verse says ... because it is separate from other-nature": the answer. This explains general subsumption, because the Mahīśāsakas say that other-nature is associated, not self-nature, and also that other-nature mutually subsumes, not self-nature, just as morality, concentration, and wisdom subsume the eightfold noble path. Their tenet is not correct: in terms of their substance, their substantial marks are different. If being similar in meaning means they mutually subsume, then since the principle of non-self is the same in all dharmas, all would mutually subsume. The sūtra provisionally speaks of mutual subsumption based on mutual conformity, but from the ultimate standpoint it only subsumes its own substance. Therefore the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 59, says: "When the self-nature of dharmas subsumes self-nature, it is not like grasping food with the hand or taking hold of clothing with the fingers. Rather, each sustains its own substance so that it is not dispersed or destroyed; hence it is called 'subsumption'. The name 'subsumption' is established with the meaning of sustaining; therefore ultimate subsumption only subsumes self-nature."