成唯識論了義燈 3.79

3.79

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.