成唯識論述記 5.293

5.293

述曰：其惡作者此中名悔，雖遍三性，心起體是實有，而於癡起位相增，但說此二以為癡分。若眠、悔無體，是愚癡分，即善、無記心，此應非有。不爾，愚癡應通善心有。五十五云：惡作、睡眠是世俗有，是愚癡分。《對法》論等言遍三性，故別有體，不可在善、無記之中，即言有體；染污之中，即言無體。而彼但言尋、伺假故，今例掉舉，何義不同？問：若以此五文為正者，何故《瑜伽》五十五說「六法遍染」，五十八說「十遍染心」。

The Commentary states: Kaukṛtya is here called 'regret.' Although it is omnipresent across the three moral natures, its substantial arisings in citta are substantially existent; yet because its marks intensify at the time delusion arises, these two are merely said to be parts of delusion. If torpor and regret lacked substance and were parts of delusion, then in wholesome and indeterminate cittas these should not exist. If that were not so, delusion would have to be present throughout wholesome citta. Fascicle 55 states: 'Regret and torpor are conventionally existent and are parts of delusion.' The Abhidharma treatises and others state that they are omnipresent across the three natures, so they have distinct substances; one cannot say they have substance when in wholesome and indeterminate states, but lack substance when in defiled states. And that text merely states that vitarka and vicāra are nominal; now by analogy with restlessness, what meaning could be different? Question: If these five texts are taken as authoritative, why does Fascicle 55 of the Yogācārabhūmi say that 'six dharmas are omnipresent in defilement,' and Fascicle 58 say that 'ten are omnipresent in defiled citta'?