成唯識論演祕 7.307

7.307

詳曰：初釋為正，故本論云：云何能入所應知相？彼總答云：由斷四處障等能入。下別釋中，四種皆說能、所二治，若「離疑」言不目能治，第二將何為能治耶？若言不說，何故餘有此獨無耶？故「離疑」言顯能離也。

I examine this and say: The first explanation is correct. Thus the root treatise states: "How is one able to enter the characteristics of what should be known?" It answers generally: "By abandoning the four places of hindrance, etc., one is able to enter." In the specific explanations below, both the antidote and the antidoted are stated in all four cases. If the expression "leaving doubt" did not designate the antidote, what would serve as the antidote in the second? If one says it is not stated, why is this one alone lacking what the others have? Therefore, the expression "leaving doubt" indicates that which is able to leave.