成唯識論述記 5.354

5.354

述曰：不問何世有為、無為，法順己者要樂合故；法違己者要樂離故，先或起貪；後或起恚。若是不愛不憎之境，有處中欲，即是不合不離之欲，此中所攝。又未有於境不樂合、離起煩惱者，邪見緣滅亦是離欲，戒見取等即是合欲。若於境界，不樂合、離及不印持，即無煩惱。無煩惱時可無邪欲及邪勝解，由此二種非遍行故。故染污心要定有欲，於所受境要必印持，印持事相。無染心起不印持者，既要欲樂及印持故，方起貪等。是故此二染心非無，即證十有，餘證有如前說。問：如疑諦理等，豈有印持耶？

The Commentary states: Regardless of what temporal period, conditioned or unconditioned, toward phenomena that are agreeable to oneself one must wish for union; toward phenomena that disagree with oneself one must wish for separation. Thus, one may first give rise to greed, or later give rise to hatred. Toward objects that are neither loved nor hated, there is an intermediate desire, which is a desire neither for union nor for separation, and is subsumed under this. Furthermore, there has never been one who gives rise to afflictions without wishing for union or separation with respect to an object: false view taking cessation as its object is also a desire for separation, while the clinging to precepts and views and so forth is a desire for union. If, toward an object, there is neither wishing for union or separation nor ascertainment, there will be no afflictions. When there are no afflictions, evil desire and evil resolve may be absent, because these two are not universal factors. Therefore, a defiled mind must definitely have desire, and toward an experienced object it must definitely ascertain the marks of the matter. There is no arising of a defiled mind without ascertainment; since wishing-desire and ascertainment are required before greed and so forth can arise, these two are not absent in defiled minds, which proves that ten are present; the remaining proofs of their presence are as explained before. Question: In cases such as doubting the principle of the truths, how could there be ascertainment?