成唯識論述記 5.291

5.291

述曰：下會違也。有二段文：初會掉貪分，後會六、十遍。此等初也。一切染心即瞋起時，而亦定有掉舉自性。而貪起位即掉舉增，多順貪故，而實有體故遍染心。五十三說是假有者，必無別體；是實有者，即有別體。世俗有者，或別有體，或別無體，如下自解此世俗有，故是實有。此中所辨實有體等，或文外意，諸論多約依貪上立，故言貪分。世俗有中剋實出體，即別有也。為會此文遍染心起，舉如何等。

The Commentary states: Below is the reconciliation of contradictions. There are two sections of text: first, reconciling [restlessness as] a part of greed; second, reconciling the six and ten [upakleśas] as omnipresent. This is the first. In all defiled cittas—even when anger arises—the intrinsic nature of restlessness is certainly present. But at the time greed arises, restlessness intensifies; because it mostly accords with greed, and yet substantially exists in substance, it is omnipresent in defiled citta. When Fascicle 53 says it is nominally existent, it definitely lacks a distinct substance; when it is substantially existent, it has a distinct substance. What exists conventionally either has a distinct substance or lacks a distinct substance, as will be explained below regarding this conventional existence; therefore it is substantially existent. The discussion here of having substantial existence and so forth is perhaps an implication outside the text: various treatises mostly establish it based upon greed, which is why it is called 'a part of greed.' When determining its true substance within conventional existence, it distinctively exists. In order to reconcile this text with its arising omnipresently in defiled citta, it is cited as follows.