成唯識論述記 5.605

5.605

述曰：此第二釋，許此俱三，亦名不共。若爾，何故唯說無明？對餘識中無明惑故。且說此識不共無明，非此餘三不名不共，謂餘部計餘識無明是不共攝，不遍三性心。今此勝用能遍諸心，故偏對彼說。餘三名不共，論師理准，未見正文。

The Commentary states: This is the second explanation, conceding that the three associated with this are also called unshared. If so, why does it only speak of ignorance? In contrast to the affliction of ignorance in the other consciousnesses, it temporarily speaks of the unshared ignorance of this consciousness, not that the other three are not called unshared. It means that other schools assert that the ignorance of the other consciousnesses is subsumed under the unshared, yet it does not pervade thoughts of the three natures. Now, this superior function can pervade all thoughts, so it is spoken of specifically in contrast to that. That the other three are called unshared is reasoned by the treatise master, but one has not seen a canonical text for it.