眾同分Class-similarity designation
心不相應行法之第三。於諸有情（*teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ*）於各自之有情趣聚（*tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye*）之自體相似性（*ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā*）分位中，假立「眾同分」之名——其體非實，乃依有情身心相似分位差別之施設。本條 cluster-locator 屬「依色心分位差別假立」——CWS 卷一之第四類假立（→#71 cluster 首 articulate 全形）。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
心不相應行法之第三。於諸有情（teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ）於各自之有情趣聚（tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye）之自體相似性（ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā）分位中，假立「眾同分」之名——其體非實，乃依有情身心相似分位差別之施設。本條詞族定位屬「依色心分位差別假立」——《成唯識論》卷一之第四類假立（→#71 詞族首闡明全形）。
⭐ 眾同分為 #72、#81–#84 諸條之結構前提：集論中 #72 命根（「於眾同分中...假立壽命」）及 #81–#84 生/老/住/無常（「於眾同分中，諸行之...」）均以 nikāyasabhāge（眾同分中）為定義框架之前置限定——眾同分為此 sub-詞族之本體立基（→#72、→#81–#84）。
經
不相應行為論藏所立之分析範疇，於阿含、尼柯耶不作獨立法目；其經藏概念線索可由「界」（dhātu）、「趣」（gati）、「類」（jāti）等詞群追溯——諸阿含中「諸比丘與比丘同分」「人同分」「天同分」之表述散見，然此類用法為現象的教證描述，非本體獨立法立。論藏將此現象學結構化為獨立分析範疇，乃 Sarvāstivāda 阿毘達磨時期始見；瑜伽行派重判為假立（prajñapti），並以有情身心相似之分位差別為假立基。
論
《顯揚聖教論》卷一（T31n1602, T31.0484b12，無著菩薩造）：
眾同分者，謂諸有情互相似性。
——teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ → 諸有情；ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā → 互相似性。顯揚以精簡之措辭抓住本條核心：「相似性」（sadṛśatā）而非「相同性」——有情趣聚之成員共享相似，而非同一。
《成唯識論》卷一（T31n1585, T31.0005b07–15）先後兩段論證，先破有部「同分」之實有立場：
若同智、言，因斯起故，知實有者，則草、木等應有同分。又，於同分起同智、言，同分復應有別同分，彼既不爾，此云何然？
——《成唯識論》提出兩難：若「同分」為實有因（令同智、同言生起），則草木亦應有同分（荒謬）；若於同分又能起同智、同言，則同分本身又需更高之同分，無窮後退。兩難封閉有部立場。
然依有情身、心相似，分位差別，假立同分。
——《成唯識論》之逐語素仿譯：ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā → 身、心相似；avasthā-viśeṣe prajñaptiḥ → 分位差別，假立。三字組「身、心相似，分位差別，假立同分」直接繼承《集論》集論體文，為最精確之漢譯呈現。
按：有部立「同分」為 dravya-sat（以之解釋同類有情之教育可能性、業報傳遞之類-consistency），瑜伽行派以「身心相似分位差別」之假立回應——此類-similarity 為真實現象，但其立基是色心之配置差異，非另立一獨立實有。《成唯識論》之無窮後退論辯（同分需再一同分）為此類假立論辯之典型結構，於 #73 闡明最清晰。
梵saṃskṛta
nikāya ＜ ni-（下、集合）+ √ci（聚集、堆積）+ -āya（行動名詞後綴）——「所聚合之物」「集合、群、類」。同根 kāya（#64 身），字面義「堆積之物」，同指聚合體；nikāya 強調「向下積聚」之群集義。
sabhāga ＜ sa-（共、同）+ bhāga（份、分配；＜ √bhaj，分配、分享）+ 複合——「共同之份」「共有之分」。√bhaj ＜印歐祖語 *bʰag-（分配、配給）。同源：阿維斯陀語 baγa-（份、神祇之賜予；Ahura Mazda 之別稱）；梵語 bhaga-（幸運、神祇之賜予，「薄伽梵 bhagavat-」之詞根）。⚠️ 希臘 φαγεῖν（食）為另一印歐祖語 root，不與此處 *bʰag- 混列。
複合：nikāya（群集）+ sabhāga（共分）= 「有情群集中之共同份額」——技術義為「同類有情身心之相似性」。
《阿毘達磨集論》（無著, Abhidh-s 10）梵本定義（PRAJNAPTI_DEFINITIONS.md § IV）：
nikāyasabhāgaḥ katamaḥ / teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye ātmabhāvasadṛśatāyāṃ nikāyasabhāga iti prajñaptiḥ //
於諸有情（teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ，分配式重複「各各有情之」）於各自之有情趣聚（tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye，同式重複「各各趣聚之中」）之自體相似性（ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā），稱為「眾同分」之假立。
⭐ 分配式重複（distributive reduplication）：teṣāṃ teṣāṃ + tasmin tasmin 之重複形式，梵語用以表示「各別之、分別地」——強調此相似性為有情「各各對各各趣聚」之個別關係，非一體化之普遍相似。《集論》在此措辭上精確地保住了「同分」之 particular 性質：每一有情之眾同分為其特有之類-membership 指向，而非泛化之「所有有情相似」。
《集論》不相應行段 prajñapti 格式（無 svabhāva / karman 雙結構，僅以 iti prajñaptiḥ 一句作結）——格式精簡即義理立場（→#71 format-學科已詳）。
按：nikāya-* 之「群集」語根與 kāya（身體 = 堆積體）共源（同 √ci），本身即一義理暗示：有情之「同分」與有情之「身」共享積聚之基礎——身是物質積聚，同分是身心相似積聚之 classification。集論以 nikāyasabhāge 為 #72 命根 + #81–#84 有為四相之定義前置，顯示眾同分為此 sub-詞族之結構之框架（→#72，→#81–#84）。*
巴pāḷi
⚠ In Review · 南傳無「心不相應行」之 nikāyasabhāga 獨立法。
南傳承認同類有情之相似性（如「同為人類」「同為梵天」之類-similarity），但以 jāti-paññatti（出生類概念）及 samūha-paññatti（集合概念）等廣義 paññatti 類（Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha VIII.4）處理，不另列為 citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra 之獨立法目。此乃範疇之架構之系統設計差異——非否定類-similarity 之現象，而是將之歸入 paññatti 通用類而非獨立法位。
Pāli 「有情類」之現象學語詞（nikāya、satta、jāti）散見諸 Nikāya，然均為教證描述，非論藏列位。Vism 不對 nikāyasabhāga 立四相分析——此本身即南北架構分歧之直接表達：南傳無此 prajñapti 獨立位，則自無四相可析。
按：南北傳在此分歧之深層結構——Sarvāstivāda 曾立 nikāyasabhāga 為 dravya-sat（以之解釋同類有情共業受用之本體基礎），瑜伽行派接其 75 法架構但重判為 prajñapti（「身心相似，分位差別，假立」），南傳則無此獨立框架，將類-similarity 分散入 paññatti + jāti-vipāka 兩個更基本之處理層——三家對「有情隸屬同類」這一現象學走出三條本體路徑，於本 24 條詞族內結構清晰（→#71 巴段已闡明詞族層南北分歧）。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「眾同分」之梵文 nikāyasabhāga 為複合詞：nikāya（群集，< ni-「下、集合」+ √ci「聚集」+ -āya）+ sabhāga（共同之份，< sa-「共、同」+ bhāga「份、分配」< √bhaj「分配、分享」< 印歐祖語 *bʰag-「分配」）。nikāya 之 √ci 與 kāya（身體）同根——身體為物質積聚，眾同分為身心相似積聚之分類，二詞共享「積聚」之語根。√bhaj（分配）之印歐祖語同源 *bʰag-：阿維斯陀語 baγa-（神祇之賜予份）、梵語 bhaga-（幸運，「薄伽梵 bhagavat-」之詞根）。複合義「有情群集中之共同份額」，技術義為「同類有情身心之相似性」。漢譯「眾同分」：「眾」= 諸有情（群集），「同分」= 共同之份額（sabhāga），玄奘取義精當。
眾同分為 24 不相應行之第三，並為 #72 命根（→#72）及 #81–#84 有為四相（→#81–#84）之結構性前提——《集論》定義式以 nikāyasabhāge（眾同分中）為前置，命根與四相皆在「眾同分之框架下」假立，故眾同分為此 sub-詞族之結構框架。《集論》定義（teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye ātmabhāva-sadṛśatāyāṃ nikāyasabhāga iti prajñaptiḥ）之分配式重複（teṣāṃ teṣāṃ + tasmin tasmin）精確保住「同分」之 particular 性質：每一有情之眾同分為其特有之類-membership 指向，非泛化之「所有有情相似」。《成唯識論》卷一以兩難論辯破有部之實有立場：若「同分」為令同智同言生起之實因，則草木亦應有同分（荒謬）；且同分又需更高之同分，無窮後退。兩難封閉後，以「依有情身、心相似，分位差別，假立同分」作正立。此無窮後退論辯為唯識假立論辯之典型範式，於本條最為清晰。
南傳無 nikāyasabhāga 作為獨立法目。有情類相似性以 jāti-paññatti（出生類概念）及 samūha-paññatti（集合概念）等廣義 paññatti 類（Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha VIII.4）處理，不另列為獨立分位假立。三家三路：有部立眾同分為 dravya-sat（解釋同類有情共業受用之本體基礎），唯識接其位但重判為 prajñapti（身心相似，分位差別），南傳則無此獨立框架——三家對「有情隸屬同類」現象之本體處理走出三條路徑，結構清晰（→#71 詞族框架）。
眾同分之修行涵義在於認識「有情類聚」之假立性：「我是人」確有實質（身心配置之相似、業力之趨同、認知行為模式之共享皆是真實現象），但「人性」作為獨立實體、作為真正之繩索綁定我於人趣，乃假立之施設，非本體之物。此認識使「投生人道」之業報邏輯不再被理解為本質命定，而是業力驅動之分位配置——配置可變，業力可轉，「同分」之假立性正是此可能性之本體支撐。
「眾同分」為玄奘既譯——「眾」（有情之群集）、「同」（相似、共有）、「分」（份額）切中 nikāya（群集）+ sabhāga（共同份額）之複合義。英譯 class-similarity 或 class-membership 各取一面；本譯取 Class-similarity designation 以明示 prajñapti 性格。
眾同分 ——於諸有情各自有情趣聚中，自體相似性（ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā）分位，假立「眾同分」之名；性為有情類聚之相似分位，業為命根（→#72）及諸有為相（→#81–#84）之結構框架；非別有體，依有情色心分位相似差別假立。
英綜述en-synthesis
Nikāyasabhāga compounds two Sanskrit terms. Nikāya combines ni- (intensive, downward) + √ci "to gather, pile up" + -āya (action-noun suffix), yielding "an assembly, a collection, a grouping." The root √ci is the same as in kāya (body as aggregate, #64 of the 100-dharma list) — a doctrinal resonance: nikāya is an aggregate of beings as kāya is an aggregate of physical elements, both compounding under the same "gathering" root. Sabhāga combines sa- (common, together) + bhāga "share, portion" < √bhaj "to distribute, allot," from PIE *bʰag- "to apportion." The Avestan cognate baγa- (share, divine gift; epithet of Ahura Mazda) illuminates the original field: bhāga is what a deity distributes to beings — their allotted share of life-circumstances. Nikāyasabhāga thus compounds "class-grouping" + "common-share," yielding "the share-in-common among a class of sentient beings" — technically, the similarity of ātmabhāva (self-body/personal-constitution) across members of the same class.
Nikāyasabhāga (眾同分) is the third of 24 citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra. Asg's definition homes on a distributively-reduplicated formula (teṣāṃ teṣāṃ sattvānāṃ tasmin tasmin sattvanikāye — "of each-and-every being, in their respective class-grouping") emphasizing that class-membership is particular: each sentient being has its own directional class-relation, not a global one. The 假立 (prajñapti-sat) ground is ātmabhāva-sadṛśatā — the configurational similarity of personal-constitution — a real phenomenon (beings of the same class genuinely share cognitive, behavioral, and morphological patterns) but not requiring an independent real factor to explain it. CWS exposes the regress implied by Sarvāstivāda's dravya-sat claim (if "class-similarity" is a real factor causing "same-class recognition," then that recognition itself requires another class-similarity factor, ad infinitum) and proposes instead: the real ground is the body-mind similarity (身心相似) of co-arising factors across continua; "眾同分" is the designation imputed on that similarity. ⭐ Structural role: Asg places nikāyasabhāge as the prefixed locative frame for #72 命根 and #81–#84 生/老/住/無常 ("within class-membership, karma-determined duration..." / "within class-membership, the arising of saṃskāras...") — nikāyasabhāga is the positional-ontological scaffold for the sub-cluster.
Theravāda has no nikāyasabhāga as a discrete dharma. The phenomenon (species-similarity, shared-class behavioral patterns) is handled via jāti-paññatti (birth-class concept) and samūha-paññatti (collective concept) — both broad-paññatti types in the Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha's six-paññatti taxonomy. The interesting comparison: Theravāda's paññatti category is broadly the "concept" category (including all conventional designations not reducible to ultimate paramattha-dhammas), whereas Yogācāra's 不相應行 are specifically citta-viprayukta designations (conditioned, not ultimate-real). Both traditions agree the phenomenon is not a discrete paramattha-dhamma / dravya-sat — the disagreement is about which category-bucket it falls into and what precise configurational ground explains it.
The practitioner's seam for 眾同分 is the moment of recognizing species-membership as imputed, not self-evident. "I am human" names a real pattern — the shared cognitive-affective-morphological configurations, karma-convergences, and behavioral repertoires of the human class are real; but "human-nature" as a substance, as a real factor binding me to the human class, is a designation on those patterns, not a metaphysical rope. This loosening is subtler than deanatomizing the body; it is deanatomizing the category itself. The meditator who sees nikāyasabhāga as prajñapti finds that "being human" is not an ontological destiny but a configurational description — one that can change, karma-by-karma, class-by-class. The rebirth logic of 眾同分 is thereby the rebirth logic of designation, not of essence.
Class-similarity designation (nikāyasabhāga) — Of each sentient being, within their respective class-grouping, in the similarity of their personal-constitutions: [we designate] "class-membership" — an imputation on the configurational similarity of body-and-mind across co-arising continua, not a separately-existing real factor.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 結構分析詳 S3-P11 §2.3。眾同分為 24 不相應行 sub-詞族之本體框架——集論以 nikāyasabhāge 為 #72 命根及 #81–#84 有為四相之定義前置，顯示本條為命根（→#72）及有為相詞族之 positional 立基；《成唯識論》之無窮後退論辯（「同分復應有別同分」）為唯識假立論辯之典型範式，於本條闡明最清晰。