成唯識論了義燈 5.214

5.214

次以七攝七者，以《雜集》七，攝《瑜伽》七。《雜集》任運不攝瑜伽，非尋伺故，有相少分攝伽有相，彼緣過、現。《瑜伽》有相唯緣過去。《論》云：謂先所受義，既說先受，故唯過去。或通現、過，《論》云：於先所受義，諸根成熟，善名言者，所起分別，先受之類。亦云：先受，即全相攝，無相攝彼無相少分。《瑜伽》通緣世，《雜集》唯未來。或《瑜伽》無相亦《雜集論》有相所攝。彼《論》釋云：隨先所引，及嬰兒等不善名者所有分別，但約善不善，言分有無相，緣境無異，故有相攝。前解為勝。

Next, subsuming the seven by means of the seven: using the seven of the Abhidharmasamuccaya to subsume the seven of the Yogācārabhūmi. The spontaneous of the Abhidharmasamuccaya does not subsume [that of] the Yogācāra[bhūmi], because it is not vitarka and vicāra. A minor portion of [discrimination] with signs subsumes the [discrimination] with signs of the Yogācāra[bhūmi], for that takes past and present as its object, [whereas] the [discrimination] with signs of the Yogācārabhūmi takes only the past as its object. The treatise says: 'Refers to previously experienced objects.' Since it says 'previously experienced', it is therefore only the past. Or it may pertain to both present and past: the treatise says: 'Regarding previously experienced objects, the discriminations arisen in those whose faculties have matured and who are skilled in verbal expression'—the kind that was previously experienced. It also says: 'previously experienced', thus they are completely mutually subsumed. [Discrimination] without signs subsumes a minor portion of that [discrimination] without signs; [that of] the Yogācārabhūmi generally takes [multiple] times as its object, [whereas that of] the Abhidharmasamuccaya takes only the future. Or else, the [discrimination] without signs of the Yogācārabhūmi is also subsumed under the [discrimination] with signs of the Abhidharmasamuccaya. That treatise explains: 'All discriminations that occur in accordance with what was previously induced, and in infants and others unskilled in names'—merely dividing presence and absence of signs in terms of skilled and unskilled speech, while there is no difference in the observed objects; therefore it is subsumed under [discrimination] with signs. The former explanation is superior.