成唯識論述記 2.283

2.283

述曰：論主難云：則草木緣之，亦起同言、同智，應別有同分；草等既無，人等應不有。量云：汝宗草等，應有別同分；起同言、智故；許如人天等。又應天人等，無別實同分；起同言智故；如草木等。有何所以不許彼有耶？彼若救言：如趣生體唯內有情有，而外無情無，同分類應爾，非外皆應有。若《六足》、《對法》文，無法同分；唯《俱舍》、《順正理》師立。

The Commentary states: The author of the treatise objects, saying: Then conditioning grasses and trees also gives rise to common expression and common cognition, so they should have a separate commonality; since grasses and the like do not have it, humans and the like should not have it either. The formal syllogism is: In your school, grasses and the like should have a separate commonality; because they give rise to common expression and cognition; accepted like humans, devas, and the like. Furthermore, humans, devas, and the like should lack a separate, real commonality; because they give rise to common expression and cognition; like grasses, trees, and the like. What reason is there for not accepting that they have it? If they defend, saying: Just as the essence of destinies and rebirths exists only internally in sentient beings and does not exist in external non-sentient things, commonality should likewise be of this sort, and should not exist across all external things. In the texts of the Six Abhidharma Treatises and the Abhidharma-samuccaya, there is no commonality of dharmas; it is established only by the masters of the Abhidharmakośa and Nyāyānusāra.