成唯識論演祕 6.639

6.639

詳曰：《疏》自問答有助正別，正唯不善，助可無記，已作兩釋，而不定判取正非助，何過見非？

Detailed commentary: The Commentary itself has a question-and-answer distinguishing auxiliary and principal: the principal is strictly unwholesome, while the auxiliary may be indeterminate. Having already made two explanations without definitively deciding to take the principal and reject the auxiliary, what fault is there to be censured?