俱舍論記 16.167

16.167

「論曰至名貪業道」者，釋初句，明貪業道。他物簡自，自貪不成。理亦應說於情起貪，而不說者，影顯可知。或舉輕顯重，非情起貪尚名業道，況復於情。或可他言亦攝於情，或唯非情起貪偏重名貪業道，論不說情。前解為勝，謂於他物非理惡欲屬己非他。力謂強力，竊謂私竊。起力、竊心，貪求他物，如是惡欲名貪業道。此貪唯是修所斷貪。於修斷中貪著己物亦非業道。故《正理》云「唯於他物起惡欲貪名貪業道。若異此者，貪著己物業道應成。輪王、北洲為難亦爾。」

Regarding "The commentary says [...] is named the path of karma of covetousness": this explains the first line, clarifying the path of karma of covetousness. "Another's possessions" excludes one's own; covetousness toward one's own [possessions] does not constitute [this path of karma]. In principle one should also speak of covetousness arising toward sentient beings, but that it is not spoken of is because it is known by implication. Or, it brings up the light to reveal the heavy: if covetousness arising toward the insentient is still named a path of karma, how much more so toward the sentient! Or it may be that the word "another's" also includes sentient beings; or it is only because covetousness arising toward the insentient is predominantly heavy that it is named the path of karma of covetousness, and the commentary does not mention the sentient. The former explanation is superior. That is to say, an improper, evil desire that another's possessions belong to oneself and not to the other. "Force" refers to overt force; "theft" refers to covert theft. Giving rise to thoughts of force or theft and covetously seeking another's possessions—such evil desire is named the path of karma of covetousness. This covetousness is exclusively covetousness abandoned through cultivation. Even within what is abandoned through cultivation, clinging covetously to one's own possessions also does not constitute a path of karma. Therefore the Nyāyānusāra says: "Only evil desire and covetousness arising toward another's possessions is named the path of karma of covetousness. Were it otherwise, clinging covetously to one's own possessions would constitute a path of karma; the objections concerning the Wheel-Turning King and Uttarakuru would also be like this."