成唯識論述記 2.264

2.264

《瑜伽》唯約未為損、伏、能生用說，無不成就，亦不相違。《對法論》等不說，任運一分無記是種子成生得善中，文亦略也。然准彼論，自在成就言一分無記，其種子成就，理亦攝餘一分無記，其生得善與《瑜伽》同。然准《對法》，亦應如彼煩惱，理說通成、不成，以在他界不起他界生得善故，唯說成就同於《瑜伽》，以《瑜伽》中但依染法能生用說。其能治道說奢摩他，不說無漏道，以《對法》中通說染體及用未滅，名為成就；通無漏道名為能治。《對法》文盡，《瑜伽》少分，故知二論各據一義。

The *Yogācārabhūmi* speaks solely in terms of not being impaired or suppressed and having the capacity to generate, without non-possession, which is also not contradictory. The *Abhidharma-samuccaya* and other texts do not mention that the spontaneous portion of indeterminate phenomena is possession of seeds, and in [discussing] innately acquired wholesome phenomena, the text is also abbreviated. However, following that treatise, mastery possession refers to one portion of indeterminate phenomena; possession as seeds logically also encompasses the other portion of indeterminate phenomena, and its innately acquired wholesome phenomena are identical to the *Yogācāra*. Yet following the *Abhidharma-samuccaya*, it should also logically be said to apply to both possession and non-possession, like those afflictions, because when in another realm one does not give rise to the innately acquired wholesome phenomena of that other realm; speaking only of possession is identical to the *Yogācāra*, because in the *Yogācāra* it is explained solely on the basis of the generative capacity of defiled phenomena. The path that counteracts them is stated to be śamatha, not the anāsrava path, whereas in the *Abhidharma-samuccaya* it generally speaks of the defiled entity and its function not being eliminated as possession, and generally considers the anāsrava path as the antidote. The text of the *Abhidharma-samuccaya* is exhaustive, while that of the *Yogācāra* is partial; therefore we know that the two treatises each rely on a different meaning.