成唯識論了義燈 3.60

3.60

言分別論者，或大乘異師，有種子故。或小乘諸部，皆名分別，不定一部。故《攝論》中分別論者，傳釋是化地部。《婆沙》中分別傳說是正量部。此論下文分別論者，云是說假部故。今此文略有三釋：一、云即大眾等四部，若爾何故下云？何故汝論說有異生，唯得成就無漏種子？答：下因便破大乘異師。二、云始終俱是破大乘師。三、云始終俱是破小乘師。大眾部等以本淨心能為因生，名為種子，非許有種。或復彼師許有種子，破不相應中，云有執隨眠，即大眾等故。《樞要》三解。

Regarding the term 'Vibhājyavādin': they are either divergent Mahāyāna masters, because they posit seeds; or the various Hīnayāna schools, which are all called Vibhajyavāda, not fixed to a single school. Thus, in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Vibhajyavādin is traditionally explained as the Mahīśāsaka school. In the Mahāvibhāṣā, the Vibhajyavādin is traditionally said to be the Saṃmatīya school. In the lower text of this treatise, the Vibhajyavādin is stated to be the Prajñaptivāda school. Now, in this passage, there are roughly three interpretations: First, it refers to the four schools such as the Mahāsāṃghika. If so, why does it say below: 'Why does your treatise say that there are ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) who only attain the possession of uncontaminated seeds?' Answer: Below, it takes the opportunity to refute divergent Mahāyāna masters. Second, it is a refutation of Mahāyāna masters from beginning to end. Third, it is a refutation of Hīnayāna masters from beginning to end. The Mahāsāṃghika and others hold that the fundamentally pure mind can serve as a cause to produce things, designating it as 'seeds,' without admitting the existence of actual seeds. Or again, those masters may admit the existence of seeds, as in the refutation of non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), where it says that some hold anuśayas [to be separate], which refers to the Mahāsāṃghika and others. These are the three explanations in the Shunyao.