俱舍論記 29.23

29.23

「第三但依至皆無量攝」者，釋第九、第十句，依地分別。第三喜無量但依初、二靜慮，喜受攝故，餘定地中無此喜故。所餘慈、悲、捨三無量，通依六地。此師唯約定地以說。或有欲令唯依五地，謂除未至，是容豫功德，已離欲者方能起故。未至定是未離欲道，設已離欲亦不能起。此師但約容豫位明。或有欲令此四無量隨其所應，喜在三地，謂欲、初、二。三通十地，謂欲、四根本、四近分、中間，總而言之通依十地。此意欲令定不定地根本、加行皆無量攝。又《正理》云「若悲亦依下三靜慮，如何得與喜、樂相應？悲緣苦有情，慼行相轉故。此如無漏厭作意生，是故通依下三靜慮。彼真實作意能順生欣，喜、樂相應，可無有過。此勝解作意不順生欣，如何可言與彼相似？疑是慼性，不順生欣，如何許疑？喜、樂俱起勝解作意應與彼同。然此於欣極相隨順，力能引生真實作意故。疑則不爾，極違真故。彼尚相應，此寧不許？此勝解作意理應違欣，有歡、慼、處中行相別故。悲既慼行相轉，應非喜、樂相應，勿二行相俱時轉故。若爾，應不許與捨受相應，捨受處中行相轉故。既非不許捨受相應與喜、樂俱，理定應許，勿全不與受相應故（已上論文）。」

Regarding "the third is based only on [the first two dhyānas], up to: are all included in the immeasurables": this explains the ninth and tenth lines, distinguishing them by their [meditative] stages. The third, the immeasurable of joy, is based only on the first and second dhyānas because it is subsumed under joy-feeling, and in the remaining stages of concentration there is no such joy. The remaining three immeasurables—benevolence, compassion, and equanimity—are generally based on six stages. This master speaks only with reference to the stages of concentration. Alternatively, some would maintain that they are based only on five stages, that is, excluding the preparatory stage (anāgamya), because these are qualities of ease and leisure, which can only be aroused by one who is already free from desire. The preparatory stage is the path of one not yet free from desire; even if one is already free from desire, one cannot arouse them [there]. This master explains solely in terms of the state of ease and leisure. Alternatively, some would maintain that according to what is appropriate for these four immeasurables, joy is in three stages—namely, the desire realm, the first [dhyāna], and the second [dhyāna]—while the other three extend through ten stages—namely, the desire realm, the four fundamental [dhyānas], the four access concentrations (sāmantaka), and the intermediate [dhyāna]—generally speaking, being based on ten stages. This view intends that both fundamental and preparatory concentrations, in both concentrated and non-concentrated stages, are all included in the immeasurables. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: "If compassion is also based on the lower three dhyānas, how could it be associated with joy and bliss? Because compassion has suffering sentient beings as its object and operates with a sorrowful aspect. This arises just like the anāsrava mental engagement of revulsion; therefore, it is generally based on the lower three dhyānas. That authentic mental engagement can accord with and generate gladness, and being associated with joy and bliss, there can be no fault. How could this mental engagement of resolute determination, which does not accord with generating gladness, be said to be similar to that? Doubt is sorrowful in nature and does not accord with generating gladness, so how could doubt be accepted [as co-arising with them]? The mental engagement of resolute determination arising together with joy and bliss should be the same as that. However, this is extremely in accord with gladness because its power can induce authentic mental engagement. Doubt is not like that, for it fundamentally contradicts truth. If that [doubt] can still be associated [with them], why would this not be accepted? This mental engagement of resolute determination ought to contradict gladness because there are distinct aspects: joy, sorrow, and neutral. Since compassion operates with a sorrowful aspect, it should not be associated with joy and bliss, so that two aspects do not operate simultaneously. If so, it should not be accepted as associated with neutral feeling either, because neutral feeling operates with a neutral aspect. Since it is not rejected as being associated with neutral feeling, occurring together with joy and bliss must logically be accepted, so that it is not completely dissociated from feeling." (End of the śāstra text).