俱舍論記 29.17

29.17

「此所治瞋貪所引故」者，答。此捨無量所治瞋恚，貪所引故。貪是其本，瞋是其末，若貪不起，瞋亦不生，故捨無貪性亦能兼治瞋。謂於親友起三品貪，次緣怨家恐害親友起三品瞋，此瞋由貪引起。此捨無量最初修時，於處中起不貪、瞋故，欲令怨、親與處中等，是故最初於處中起。應知初捨怨三品瞋，末易捨故；次捨親三品貪，本難捨故。由如是理，捨雖無貪亦能治瞋。問：若捨亦能治瞋，如何頌本言捨無貪？解云：正能治貪，故前頌文無貪為體；兼能治瞋，故後長行亦言治瞋。又《正理》云「若捨無量亦能治瞋，寧唯無貪？與慈何異？且捨與慈有差別者，慈能對治瞋所引瞋，無瞋為體。捨能對治貪所引瞋，無貪為體。豈不如捨無貪為性，亦能對治貪所引瞋。如是許慈無瞋為性，亦應能治瞋所引貪。此難不然，行相違故。謂捨行相雙違貪、瞋，捨親、非親差別相故，從此愛、恚俱不生故。即由此故，捨唯無貪，正能治貪兼治瞋故。慈之行相違瞋非貪，於諸有情與樂轉故。由此慈捨雖俱違瞋，而慈順貪，捨能違害。是故此二極有差別。或修捨者治非處瞋，慈治處瞋，故有差別。

"The ill will it counteracts is induced by greed" is the reply. The ill will counteracted by this immeasurable of equanimity is induced by greed. Greed is the root and ill will is its branch; if greed does not arise, ill will is also not produced. Therefore, equanimity, with its nature of non-greed, can also incidentally counteract ill will. That is, one arouses three grades of greed toward friends and relatives, and subsequently, with regard to enemies, fearing harm to friends and relatives, arouses three grades of ill will; this ill will is induced by greed. When this immeasurable of equanimity is first cultivated, because it arises with respect to neutral persons without greed or ill will, and seeks to make enemies and relatives equal to neutral persons, it is therefore first generated toward neutral persons. It should be understood that first one abandons the three grades of ill will toward enemies, because the branch is easy to abandon; next one abandons the three grades of greed toward relatives, because the root is difficult to abandon. By such reasoning, equanimity, although non-greed, can also counteract ill will. Question: If equanimity can also counteract ill will, why does the root verse state that equanimity is non-greed? An explanation says: It primarily counteracts greed, so the earlier verse text has non-greed as its essence; it can incidentally counteract ill will, so the later prose explanation also says it counteracts ill will. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: "If the immeasurable of equanimity can also counteract ill will, why is it only non-greed? How does it differ from benevolence? The difference between equanimity and benevolence is that benevolence counteracts ill will induced by ill will and has non-ill will as its essence. Equanimity counteracts ill will induced by greed and has non-greed as its essence. Could it not be that just as equanimity, having non-greed as its nature, can also counteract ill will induced by greed, so if benevolence is accepted as having non-ill will as its nature, it should also be able to counteract greed induced by ill will? This objection is incorrect, because their mental aspects are in contradiction. That is, the mental aspect of equanimity is mutually contrary to both greed and ill will, because it abandons the differentiating characteristics of relatives and non-relatives, and from this, both affection and hostility cease to arise. Precisely for this reason, equanimity is solely non-greed, because it primarily counteracts greed and incidentally counteracts ill will. The mental aspect of benevolence contradicts ill will and not greed, because it operates by conferring happiness upon sentient beings. Because of this, although benevolence and equanimity both contradict ill will, benevolence accords with greed, whereas equanimity opposes and harms it. Therefore, these two are extremely different. Alternatively, one who cultivates equanimity counteracts illegitimate ill will, while benevolence counteracts legitimate ill will, so there is a difference."