成唯識論了義燈 5.183

5.183

忿依對現前，不繞益境。西明問云：忿既緣滅，如何此說依現前境？解云：從多為論，此《論》、《顯揚》俱說緣現，實亦緣滅。今謂，此釋有違下文。初師小十總不緣上，後師嫉等，亦不說忿，尚不緣上，如何緣滅？下許嫉等，親迷滅道，不說此忿緣於滅道。若爾准下說忿，亦緣剎那過去，非唯現境，今何說現？若見怨家說滅、道等，豈不於彼亦起忿耶？慈恩解云：許亦無失，此就麁相云：不親緣，或即是嗔。雖然未見正文，任情取捨。然西明云：忿要託本質，准既得緣剎那過去，亦不唯託於質。

Wrath (krodha) relies on an unbeneficial object present before oneself. Ximing questioned: Since wrath can take cessation as an object, how does this text say it relies on a present object? He explained: Speaking from the predominant perspective, this Treatise and the Prakaraṇāryavācā both state that it takes the present as an object, but in fact it also takes cessation as an object. Now I say: this explanation contradicts the text below. The first master says the small ten [upakleśas] do not take the higher as an object at all; the latter master, speaking of jealousy (īrṣyā) and so forth, also does not mention wrath; if it does not even take the higher as an object, how could it take cessation as an object? Below it is admitted that jealousy and so forth are directly confused about cessation and the path, but it is not said that this wrath takes cessation and the path as objects. If so, according to the statement below that wrath also takes the momentary past as an object, not only present objects, why does it now say present? If one sees an enemy speaking of cessation, the path, etc., would one not also give rise to wrath toward them? Ci'en explained: To admit this is also without fault; this states that it does not directly cognize according to coarse aspects, or it is simply hatred. Although no explicit text has been seen, one may accept or reject it as one pleases. However, Ximing says: wrath must rely on a real support; since according to this it can take the momentary past as an object, it also does not solely rely on a [present] real support.