瑜伽師地論略纂 11.166

11.166

In the treatise's explanation of the four immeasurables: loving-kindness has non-obstruction and wholesome roots as its nature; compassion has non-hatred and wholesome roots as its nature; sympathetic joy likewise has non-attachment and wholesome roots as its nature; equanimity is like the mental factor of equanimity. If one relies on the Hīnayāna, it is provisionally clarified as a visualization practice in order to eliminate the above opposing defilements. Now the Mahāyāna, because of the three objective spheres that are taken as objects, genuinely arouses the immeasurables to rescue them. What are the three objective spheres? They are explained in detail below. There are other explanations, as in the Commentarial Notes on the Abhidharma-samuccaya. What are the three kinds of immeasurables in their essence? The first two have subsequent cognition as their essence, while the objectless immeasurable has correct cognition as its essence. As for their objective domains: the "immeasurable focused on sentient beings" merely takes sentient beings generally as undergoing suffering, rescuing them and giving them happiness without observing them as real sentient beings; therefore, the subsequent text states it is shared with non-Buddhists. The "immeasurable focused on dharmas" refers to observing sentient beings as empty, conceiving only dharmas and no real self, etc., and rescuing them; since non-Buddhists impute a self, this is not shared [with them]. Both of these are subsequent cognition, and are that which is performed by great compassion. The "objectless immeasurable" takes True Suchness as its object through non-conceptual cognition. Cultivating loving-kindness is the objectless immeasurable. Question: Why is loving-kindness cultivated with respect to True Suchness? The explanation says: True Suchness is the root of loving-kindness; by having the objectless, subsequent cognition can later arouse compassion to rescue sentient beings, etc.; otherwise it could not. Spoken from the standpoint of the root, it takes True Suchness as its object. There is another explanation: True Suchness taken as an objective support by subsequent cognition serves as the characteristic. The critique says: This is not so; this is remote. How is this known? If spoken from the root, it is the domain of non-conceptual cognition; if it is rescuing sentient beings, it is cognition focused on the conventional. Why would subsequent cognition taking Suchness as an object be the objectless immeasurable? Therefore we know it is non-conceptual cognition. If not, it will naturally be differentiated in the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī.