成唯識論了義燈 3.79

3.79

《論》：不應見分是第三果。本疏云難古師。《要集》云：陳那但立三分，不遮第四。故護法師不違陳那，但是遮破。今謂不爾。雖言破古非陳那等，如《理門論》破古因明師，豈即破彌勒等師？但破古來不正諸師。今言破古亦復如是。破唯三分，以見分為第三果者，不破許有第四分者。

The treatise says: "The seeing part should not be the third fruit." The root commentary says that this refutes ancient masters. The Yaoji says: Dignāga merely established three parts, not excluding a fourth. Thus Master Dharmapāla does not contradict Dignāga, but merely refutes [others]. We now say that this is not so. Although it is said to refute ancients and not Dignāga and others—just as the Nyāyamukha refutes ancient masters of Hetuvidyā, how could it be refuting masters such as Maitreya? It merely refutes various incorrect masters of the past. The present statement refuting the ancients is also like this: it refutes those who held solely three parts and took the seeing part to be the third fruit; it does not refute those who allow that there is a fourth part.