成唯識論述記 6.990

6.990

述曰：第三子門，迷諦親疎，此第一義。忿等十法但緣迷諦惑生，不親迷諦；五十八說害、惱等者，瞋異名故。以此等行相麁而浮淺，但緣有情等生，不能深取。又設緣諦，而不是迷，不深取故。五十八說瞋迷滅者，此通言故，實非是迷。若緣故即言迷，不緣者應不迷，如二取等。二取等行相深故，不緣亦迷，瞋等雖緣淺故，何妨不迷。

The Commentary states: This is the third subsidiary topic: whether confusion regarding the truths is direct or indirect. This is the first view. The ten factors, such as wrath, arise merely through the afflictions that are confused about the truths; they are not directly confused about the truths. Where [Fascicle] 58 speaks of harm, malice, and so forth, these are merely different names for anger. Because the cognitive aspect (ākāra) of these is coarse and shallow, arising merely by taking sentient beings and the like as intentional objects, they cannot grasp deeply. Furthermore, even if they take the truths as intentional objects, they are not [direct] confusion, because they do not grasp deeply. When [Fascicle] 58 states that anger is confused about [the truth of] cessation, this is a general statement; in reality, it is not direct confusion. If merely taking something as an intentional object entailed being confused about it, then what does not take it as an intentional object should not be confused about it, as in the case of the two attachments (the attachment to views and the attachment to rules and vows). Because the cognitive aspect of the two attachments is deep, even when they do not take it as an intentional object they are still confused; though anger and so forth take it as an intentional object, because they are shallow, what prevents them from not being [directly] confused?