成唯識論了義燈 5.69

5.69

The Treatise states: "Its nature is hesitation." The root text states that [hesitation] directed toward principle (yukti) or facts (vastu) alike is doubt (vicikitsā). Ximing says: "Explaining it in accordance with the gate of the truths refers to the next world and the like; whereas doubt regarding factual matters is not said to be defiled. For example, doubting whether a post is a man is entirely doubt regarding factual matters, and is subsumed under non-obscured indeterminate nature and retribution-born factors." The Yaoji judges: "Some explanations are superior. Later in this Treatise it says: 'The three views, doubt, and independent ignorance directly confuse the truths.' Fascicle 58 agrees. If there were doubt regarding factual matters, it would be like view-attachment and so forth taking other views as object, yet the Treatise does not say so." / Now I say this is not so. Fascicle 58 states: "Namely, regarding the next world, function, cause, and effect, etc." Furthermore, the earlier [fascicle] states regarding the four: "Temporarily doubting whether the next world exists or not, what desire or resolute determination aspect does one have toward it?" Depending on doubt about the next world, etc., these are factual matters, not principle, which is why it is called confusing principle and facts. The root Commentary does not say that doubting a post to be a man is defiled doubt. If they are subsumed under the truths, what phenomenon is not a truth? Anger and other forms of attachment arising in confusion about particular facts would also have to be principle, because the objects of anger and attachment are also subsumed under the truths.