成唯識論了義燈 1.125

1.125

西明云：此三分、二分，以釋變言。自有三說：一、云初三分，安惠等八師釋，除親勝、火辨。世親同時唯立二分。二、云三分，除安惠釋變似二，言是依他故。餘如上說。三、云二分，諸師共釋，唯除安惠三分，更除火辨、親勝。三藏意存後釋，此釋不爾。若以後釋為正，三分非安惠文，二分亦無安惠，豈許安惠不釋此頌？又准本疏，二分正是難陀等文。今云二分諸師同釋，唯除安惠。三分復除火辨、親勝者豈可？難陀亦立三分。根本疏主，親承三藏翻糅論人，豈可不知，妄為此斷？故取本疏，科判為正，餘定妄傳，非三藏釋也。

Ximing states: 'Regarding the three divisions and two divisions used to explain the word "transformation", there are three explanations. First, it says that the initial three divisions are explained by eight masters such as Sthiramati, excluding Bandhuprabha and Citrabhānu, who, contemporary with Vasubandhu, posited only two divisions. Second, it says the three divisions exclude Sthiramati's explanation that transformation resembles the two, stating they are paratantra; the rest is as above. Third, it says the two divisions are explained jointly by the masters, excluding only Sthiramati's three divisions, and further excluding Citrabhānu and Bandhuprabha.' The Tripiṭaka Master favored the latter explanation. This explanation is not so. If the latter explanation were correct, the three divisions would not be Sthiramati's text, nor would Sthiramati be in the two divisions—how could Sthiramati be allowed not to explain this verse? Furthermore, according to the root commentary, the two divisions are precisely the text of Nanda and others. Now to say that the two divisions are explained jointly by the masters, excluding only Sthiramati, and that the three divisions further exclude Citrabhānu and Bandhuprabha—how could it be that Nanda also posited three divisions? Could the root commentary's author, who personally received instructions from the Tripiṭaka Master and translated and compiled the treatise, be ignorant and make such a false determination? Therefore, the structural analysis of the root commentary should be taken as correct; the rest is definitely a false transmission and not the Tripiṭaka Master's explanation.