瑜伽師地論略纂 9.14

9.14

論云「如是其餘四種作意，當知攝入六作意中，謂隨順作意」等者，義曰：四作意是七作意外，故名餘。皆四作意，是四十作意中作意，今收入六作意中六故，故言攝入六作意中。　問曰：何故此中不明第七作意相收等？解云：第七作意是果，此四作意及前六皆因，因可相攝，非果，故不收第七作意。此中以七攝四十，故唯但攝四。彼第十一下文中以四十攝七，即七中有四十作意攝盡義。今以七攝四十，非四十攝七，故不盡不收。有不同，勘之。

Regarding the śāstra's statement: "Thus, the remaining four kinds of manaskāras should be known to be subsumed within the six manaskāras, namely the conformant manaskāra, and so forth": the meaning is that the four manaskāras are outside the seven manaskāras, hence they are called "remaining." All four manaskāras are manaskāras among the forty manaskāras; now they are subsumed within the six among the six manaskāras, hence it says "subsumed within the six manaskāras." Question: Why is the mutual subsumption with the seventh manaskāra not explained here? The explanation is: the seventh manaskāra is the fruit, whereas these four manaskāras and the previous six are all causes; causes can be mutually subsumed, but not the fruit, so the seventh manaskāra is not subsumed. Here, using the seven to subsume the forty, it only subsumes four. Later in that eleventh fascicle, using the forty to subsume the seven, within the seven there is the meaning of completely subsuming the forty manaskāras. Now, using the seven to subsume the forty, rather than the forty to subsume the seven, they are incomplete and not subsumed. There are differences; verify them.