成唯識論了義燈 4.100

4.100

又前二依有勝用故，所以偏說。非謂為顯依、緣同故，以且解依彼轉，未解緣彼轉故。然《要集》云：或可初釋，唯俱有依，後釋通二。今謂不爾，若初但一，何故《論》云：俱顯前二。故說有餘。

Furthermore, because the former two supports have superior functions, they are spoken of specifically. It is not meant to show that the support and the object of cognition are the same, because it is merely explaining "operating in dependence on that," and has not yet explained "operating by cognizing that." However, the Yaoji says: perhaps the first explanation is solely the simultaneous support, while the latter explanation covers both. Now I say this is not so: if the first were only one, why would the Śāstra say "both show the former two"? Therefore, that explanation is redundant.