成唯識論了義燈 2.157

2.157

二對小乘辨差別，且對有部六門差別：一、依處差別，有部唯依於眾同分及與命根，大乘即依二障種立；二、假實差別可知；三、捨位差別，有部三說：一云，世第一法捨；一云，苦法智忍生相時捨，即彼滅時斷煩惱故；一云、二種共捨，如斷煩惱無間，解脫二道斷惑。若大乘師真見，無間起時正滅，即苦法智忍，有相見道，假說為捨，實真見道，依障種立故；四、能得差別，有部別立得得非得，以異生性，是非得故，別有得得。大乘即此異生之性，望於聖性，名為非得，據異生性，即名為得，如三成就不異於三，別立成就；五、性差別，有部唯是無覆無記。大乘通三：不善、有覆及以無覆，以定性二乘所知，望彼是無覆故，通三界故，依二障故；六、非得差別，有部非得，望一切聖法，《俱舍》第四云：不獲何聖法，名異生性，謂不獲一切，不別說故，此不獲言表離於獲，若異此者，諸佛世尊，亦不成就聲聞、獨覺種姓聖法，應名異生。

Second, distinguishing the differences in comparison with the Hīnayāna: in contrast with the Sarvāstivāda, there are six points of difference. First, difference in the basis of designation: the Sarvāstivāda posits it solely relying upon nikāya-sabhāga (group similarity) and jīvitendriya (life faculty); the Mahāyāna posits it relying upon the seeds of the two obstructions. Second, difference in being nominal or real: this is clear. Third, difference in the stage of abandonment: the Sarvāstivāda has three explanations: one says it is abandoned in the stage of worldly supreme dharmas; another says it is abandoned at the rising phase of the patience of the dharma-knowledge of duḥkha, because afflictions are severed precisely at its cessation; another says both are abandoned together, just as in the severance of afflictions, both the ānantaryamārga and vimuktimārga sever delusions. According to the Mahāyāna master, it is precisely extinguished when the true seeing [path] arises without interval, which is the patience of the dharma-knowledge of duḥkha; in the reflective darśanamārga it is metaphorically called abandonment, but in the actual true darśanamārga, it is because it is established on the basis of the seeds of the obstructions. Fourth, difference in the acquiring factor: the Sarvāstivāda separately posits possession of possession and possession of non-possession; because the state of being a pṛthagjana is a non-possession, it possesses a separate possession. For the Mahāyāna, this very nature of a pṛthagjana is called non-possession when viewed in relation to the noble nature; viewed in terms of the nature of a pṛthagjana, it is called possession; just as the three types of possession are not distinct from the three dharmas, nor is an independent possession posited. Fifth, difference in moral nature: in the Sarvāstivāda, it is exclusively undefiled-unneutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta). In the Mahāyāna, it encompasses three kinds: unwholesome, defiled, and undefiled; because the cognizable [obstruction] of the two vehicles with fixed lineage is undefiled with respect to them, because it encompasses the three realms, and because it is based upon the two obstructions. Sixth, difference in non-possession: the non-possession of the Sarvāstivāda is with respect to all noble dharmas; as Chapter 4 of the Kośa says, 'Non-attainment of what noble dharmas is called the nature of a pṛthagjana? It means non-attainment of all of them, because it does not specify otherwise; this term non-attainment expresses departure from attainment. If it were otherwise, the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, who also do not possess the noble dharmas of the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha lineage, would have to be called pṛthagjanas.'