成唯識論述記 2.784

2.784

述曰：此種雖依異熟識體，即是依於自體分也，亦非見分，見分一向緣前境故，是自體分義用別故，非受熏故。此言種子依識自體，自體即是所受熏處，不可見分初受餘熏，種後便依自體分住。此論依附，即依自體，若據別攝，即相分攝，非見等攝，即是見分緣自證分差別功能，以為相分，非是緣於自證分體；若不爾，即無證自證分。又說見分，但緣外故，何故不是自體分攝？

The Commentary states: Although these seeds depend on the substance of the retribution consciousness, which is precisely depending on the self-substance part (svabhāvabhāga), they are also not the darśanabhāga, because the darśanabhāga exclusively cognizes objective spheres before it, and because they are distinct functions and meanings of the self-substance part, not because they receive perfuming. This statement that seeds depend on the self-substance of consciousness means that the self-substance is precisely the place where perfuming is received; it cannot be that the darśanabhāga initially receives the remaining perfuming, and the seeds subsequently dwell depending on the self-substance part. When this treatise speaks of adherence, it means depending on the self-substance; if considered according to specific subsumption, they are subsumed under the nimittabhāga, not under the darśanabhāga and the like. That is, the darśanabhāga takes the distinct functions of the sākṣātkāribhāga (self-verifying part) as its nimittabhāga, and not that it cognizes the substance of the sākṣātkāribhāga; if it were not so, there would be no svasaṃvittibhāga (self-self-verifying part). Furthermore, it is said that the darśanabhāga only cognizes what is external; why are they not subsumed under the self-substance part?