成唯識論述記 3.20

3.20

述曰：依生現行果之種子名為俱有，不依引生自類名種，何故爾耶？能熏生故，望異類故，果現起故，相易知故；種望於種，非能熏生，非異類故，非現起故，非易知也，此中不說，故《攝論》第二云：「不生現行名為種類，生現行時名為種子」。勝軍如何釋「非即此剎那」？以彼計執因果同世故。云何復釋無種已生文？如彼抄會，如《瑜伽論》第五十六別抄有文，及下第四可披解也。現行能熏轉識等，應名種子。

The Commentary states: It is in reliance upon the seeds that produce actualized effects that [a seed] is called 'coexistent [with its effect]', and not in reliance upon those that induce and produce their own kind that they are called seeds. Why is this so? Because they are produced by perfuming, because they are viewed in contrast to a disparate kind, because their effects are manifest and arisen, and because their characteristics are easy to cognize. A seed viewed in relation to another seed is not produced by perfuming, is not of a disparate kind, is not manifest and arisen, and is not easy to cognize; hence it is not discussed here. Therefore, the second [fascicle] of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Those that do not produce actual manifestations are called homogeneous types; when they produce actual manifestations, they are called seeds.' How does Jayasena explain 'not being in the very same moment'? Because he adheres to the view that cause and effect belong to the same period of time. How does he further explain the text 'the non-seed has already arisen'? It is as reconciled in his notes, and as found in the separate notes on the fifty-sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, as well as being expounded and understood in the fourth [fascicle] below. The actual manifestations capable of perfuming, such as the evolving consciousnesses, should [then] be called seeds.