成唯識論述記 6.958

6.958

述曰：此三與貪、癡、慢俱，行相無違，故與彼俱。「貪、癡分故」，不與瞋並，貪分故與癡俱，癡分故與貪並。然此應思，貪分覆等可不瞋俱，獨頭癡分覆等，何不瞋俱起？豈彼三生皆定有貪也？今解必無唯癡分覆等，覆等俱時必有貪分故。又設無貪而癡覆者，欣、慼別故，亦無瞋俱。若如前解，無違理失，此覆等行必貪名利等，故（如《樞要》說）。

[The Commentary states:] These three co-occur with attachment, delusion, and conceit because their mental modes are not contradictory; therefore, they co-occur with them. "Because they are portions of attachment and delusion," they do not accompany ill-will: being portions of attachment, they co-occur with delusion; being portions of delusion, they accompany attachment. However, this should be pondered: concealment and the others as portions of attachment might well not co-occur with ill-will, but why should concealment and the others as solitary portions of delusion not co-arise with ill-will? Could it be that whenever those three arise, attachment is definitely present? It is now explained that there is definitely no concealment or the like that is purely a portion of delusion, because when concealment and the like co-occur, a portion of attachment is necessarily present. Furthermore, even supposing there is no attachment and concealment is of delusion, because gladness and distress are distinct, it also does not co-occur with ill-will. If explained as before, there is no fault of contradicting reason: these operations of concealment and the like definitely desire gain and fame, and so forth (as explained in the *Shuyao*).