成唯識論演祕 3.907

3.907

對破二宗具如疏明。有義：疏說色根，正破經部本計色根亦能持種及受熏故，不相應行別說命根及眾同分，正破一切有部。經部無別不相應故，今解不然。經部色根雖能持種，既無所緣，理不應是能執受故。一切有宗但說色根及根依處是有執受，命根、同分非能所受，亦不說是能執受故。故今別說色根非執，遮破經部；不相應行，遮薩婆多。又解此文通遮二部，但非正破，皆無有失。

The refutation of the two schools is fully clarified in the Commentary. One opinion states: When the Commentary mentions the physical faculties, it directly refutes the Sautrāntika's fundamental assertion that physical faculties can also hold seeds and receive perfuming; the non-concurrent formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) separately mentioning the vital faculty and generic similarity directly refute the Sarvāstivāda, because the Sautrāntika has no separate non-concurrent [formations]. I now interpret that this is not so: Although the physical faculties of the Sautrāntika can hold seeds, since they lack cognitive objects, they logically cannot be appropriators. The Sarvāstivāda only asserts that the physical faculties and the sites of the faculties are appropriated, while the vital faculty and generic similarity are neither capable of nor objects of appropriation, nor are they said to be appropriators. Therefore, now separately stating that physical faculties are not appropriators refutes the Sautrāntika, while non-concurrent formations refutes the Sarvāstivāda. Another explanation: This text mutually negates both schools, but is not a direct refutation; neither contains an error.