成唯識論述記 6.305

6.305

述曰：斷彼三時，必由二對治：一通對治，即唯善惠，能總斷故；二、別對治，即無貪嗔癡。如貪、嗔二有通、別對治，不善根攝，故癡亦爾。不善根攝亦有二對治，如貪、嗔二故，必別有無癡。以不善根起惡勝故，須二對治，餘惑不然。由此因緣，無癡離惠定別有體。前師解大悲非根攝云：以用無嗔、無癡二法為體。論從無嗔說為非根，實是根攝。若爾，即三念住等亦爾。不爾，大悲似四無量中悲唯以無嗔為性。今從無嗔說根所不攝，念住依惠故根所攝，且約影顯非實理文。若爾，即三世俗有，文如何通？答：實有者，體即惠故。問：不害體即無嗔，應非假有？答：世俗有言，通假實故。如種子世俗有言，即是實故。三是世俗，皆是假有。此亦不然，如五見惠分說為世俗有故，非是假有，此無癡亦爾。若爾，不害無嗔分，如何通？故後師為正。

The Commentary states: When abandoning those three, there must be two kinds of antidotes: first, a general antidote, which is wholesome wisdom alone, because it is capable of abandoning [them] collectively; second, specific antidotes, which are non-greed, non-anger, and non-delusion. Just as greed and anger have both general and specific antidotes because they are subsumed under the unwholesome roots, delusion is likewise. Being subsumed under the unwholesome roots, it also has two kinds of antidotes, just like greed and anger; therefore, there must separately be non-delusion. Because unwholesome roots are preeminent in generating evil, they require two kinds of antidotes, whereas other afflictions do not. For this reason, apart from wisdom, non-delusion definitely has a distinct substance. The previous master explained that great compassion is not subsumed under the roots, saying: 'It takes the two dharmas of non-anger and non-delusion as its substance.' The treatise, speaking from [the perspective of] non-anger, states that it is not a root, though in reality it is subsumed under the roots. If so, then the three applications of mindfulness and so forth are also likewise. If that were not so, great compassion resembles compassion among the four immeasurables, taking solely non-anger as its nature. Now, speaking from [the perspective of] non-anger, it is said not to be subsumed under the roots; mindfulness is based on wisdom and is therefore subsumed under the roots. This is merely a text that speaks by way of partial intimation, not of actual principle. If so, then how does one explain the text stating that the three are conventionally existent? Answer: As for being substantially existent, their substance is simply wisdom. Question: The substance of non-harming is non-anger, so should it not be non-nominal? Answer: The expression 'conventionally existent' applies to both nominal and substantial [existence]. Just as the statement that seeds are conventionally existent means they are substantial. The three are conventional, and all are nominally existent. This is also not so: just as the wisdom-portion of the five views is spoken of as conventionally existent and is not nominally existent, this non-delusion is also likewise. If so, how does one explain that non-harming is a portion of non-anger? Therefore, the latter master is correct.