俱舍論疏 29.15

29.15

論「理實應用二法為體」，論主正釋，謂捨應以無貪、無嗔為體。《正理》云「是故此喜定非喜受，以忻為體。或即無貪，謂別有貪是惡心所，於有情類作是思惟：云何當令諸所有樂彼不能得，皆屬於我。喜能治彼，故是無貪，此與喜根必俱行故。三地可得，如悔憂俱，喜亦無貪。分明相者，於他盛事心不貪著，知他獲得深生欣慰，心熱對治說名為喜。故知此喜亦無貪性（述曰：以治貪故名無貪性。如不淨觀觀雖是慧，以治貪故，無貪為性）。」又云「且捨與慈有差別者，慈能對治嗔所引嗔，無嗔為體。捨能對治貪所引嗔，無貪為體。豈不如捨無貪為性，亦能對治貪所引嗔。如是許慈無嗔為性，亦應能治嗔所引貪。此難不然，行相違故。謂捨行相雙違貪、嗔，捨親非親差別相故。從此愛、恚俱不生故，即由此故，捨唯無貪，正能治貪兼治嗔故。慈之行相違嗔非貪，於諸有情與樂轉故（嗔與慈與樂相違故）。由此慈、捨雖俱違嗔，而慈順貪，捨能違害，是故此二極有差別（已上論文）。」

The Śāstra states: "In actual truth, it should take two dharmas as its intrinsic nature." This is the author's correct explanation, meaning that equanimity should take non-greed and non-ill-will as its intrinsic nature. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Therefore, this sympathetic joy is definitely not joyful sensation; it takes joy as its nature. Or it is non-greed, meaning there is another greed that is a bad mental factor, which considers sentient beings in this way: 'How might all their happiness not be obtained by them, but belong wholly to me?' Sympathetic joy can counteract that, hence it is non-greed, because it must be concomitant with the faculty of joy. It can be found in the three levels, just as regret is concomitant with grief; sympathetic joy is also non-greed. As for its distinct characteristic: the mind is not greedily attached to the prosperity of others, and knowing that others have attained it, gives rise to deep joy and rejoicing; counteracting the burning of the mind is called sympathetic joy. Therefore one knows that this sympathetic joy also has non-greed as its nature (commentary says: because it counteracts greed, it is called having non-greed as its nature. Just as the contemplation of the repulsive, though it is wisdom, has non-greed as its nature because it counteracts greed)." It further states: "Furthermore, regarding the difference between equanimity and love: love can counteract ill-will induced by ill-will, and has non-ill-will as its intrinsic nature. Equanimity can counteract ill-will induced by greed, and has non-greed as its intrinsic nature. Would it not be that just as equanimity has non-greed as its nature and can also counteract ill-will induced by greed, likewise, granting that love has non-ill-will as its nature, it should also be able to counteract greed induced by ill-will? This objection is not valid, because their modes of activity are contradictory. That is, the mode of activity of equanimity is mutually contradictory with both greed and ill-will, because it discards the distinguishing marks of friend and non-friend. From this, neither attachment nor hostility arises. It is precisely because of this that equanimity is solely non-greed, directly counteracting greed while concurrently counteracting ill-will. The mode of activity of love contradicts ill-will, not greed, because it operates by giving happiness to sentient beings (because ill-will contradicts love's giving of happiness). From this, although love and equanimity both contradict ill-will, love accords with greed, whereas equanimity can oppose and harm it; therefore these two are extremely distinct (thus far the text)."