俱舍論記 5.13

5.13

「又何因不許至互相似故」者，此即第三非情同分難。穀等無情亦互相似，何不於彼立同分耶？菴羅是菓名，形似木苽。始終形色相似，生熟難知。半娜娑亦是菓名，形如冬苽，其味甘美，其樹極多。第二《正理》救云「何不許有無情同分？不應如是責，有太過失故。汝亦許有人、天等趣，胎、卵等生。何不亦許菴羅等趣、綠豆等生？」又云「由彼草木等無有展轉業用，樂欲互相似故，於彼不說別立有同分。」第三俱舍師破云：趣謂五趣、生謂四生，無情非彼，可非趣、生，體類相似應有同分。又破樂欲等同，故別須立同分。綠豆等亦同，何不立同分？

Regarding the passage from "Moreover, for what reason do you not accept" to "because they are mutually similar": this is the third objection, regarding commonality of non-sentient things. Non-sentient things such as grains are also mutually similar; why not establish commonality for them? Āmra is the name of a fruit whose shape resembles a papaya; its shape and color remain similar from beginning to end, so ripeness and unripeness are hard to discern. Panasa is also the name of a fruit whose shape is like a winter melon; its taste is sweet and delicious, and its trees are extremely numerous. Second, the rescue by the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Why not accept that there is commonality of non-sentient things? One should not reprove [us] in this way, because there would be an excessive fault. You also accept destinies such as humans and devas, and modes of birth such as womb-born and egg-born; why do you not also accept destinies such as āmra, and modes of birth such as mung beans?" It also says: "Because those grasses, trees, and so forth have no reciprocal activities and mutual similarity in desires, among them one does not speak of separately establishing a commonality." Third, the refutation by the master of the *Kośa* says: 'Destiny' refers to the five destinies, and 'birth' refers to the four modes of birth; non-sentient things are not these, so indeed they may not be destinies or births; but because their substances and kinds are similar, they should have commonality. Furthermore, to refute [the point that] because desires and so forth are identical one must separately establish commonality: mung beans and the like are also identical; why not establish commonality [for them]?