成唯識論述記 2.284

2.284

今難《俱舍》等曰：趣等唯業果，外法可言無，同分許非唯業果，何妨外法有同分；如異熟色外法可無，若等流色外非不有。若言外法無樂欲故，即無同分，無樂欲故，應無生等。若言有為法故，有生等者，即相似法故，應有同分。若言同分樂欲之因，同分無故，亦無樂欲，樂欲無故，亦無同分；應唯說有有情同分，應不與一切相似法為因。又，「趣」是趣向，外法可非趣，不以趣向解同分，何得如趣外法無？相似法上有同分故，此難古薩婆多師，更有餘難，准生為之。又汝自言起言、智故，有此同分，即外法非無。前後雖欲分疎，實為難解也。故此同分應亦非情有，此設外救出自論文，復為徵逐文外意也，請審詳之。

Now we object to the Abhidharmakośa and others, saying: Destinies and the like are solely karmic retribution, so one may say they do not exist in external dharmas; but commonality is accepted as not being solely karmic retribution, so what prevents external dharmas from having commonality? Just as fruition-of-maturation form may not exist in external dharmas, yet outflow-concordant form is not non-existent externally. If you say that because external dharmas lack desire and aspiration, they therefore lack commonality: then because they lack desire and aspiration, they should also lack arising and so forth. If you say that because they are conditioned dharmas, they have arising and so forth: then because they are similar dharmas, they should have commonality. If you say that commonality is the cause of desire and aspiration, and because commonality is absent, desire and aspiration are also absent, and because desire and aspiration are absent, commonality is also absent: then you should only speak of the commonality of sentient beings, and it should not serve as the cause for all similar dharmas. Furthermore, 'destiny' (gati) means going toward; external dharmas may well not be destinies, but commonality is not explained in terms of going toward, so how can it be absent in external dharmas just like destinies? Because commonality exists upon similar dharmas. This refutes the ancient Sarvāstivādin masters; there are further objections, which may be formulated by analogy with arising. Furthermore, you yourself state that because of giving rise to expression and cognition, this commonality exists; therefore it is not absent in external dharmas. Although you attempt to distinguish them beforehand and afterward, it is truly difficult to explain. Therefore, this commonality should also exist in non-sentient things. This hypothetical defense of the opponent originates from the treatise's text, and we further investigate the implied meaning beyond the text; please examine it carefully.