成唯識論了義燈 2.160

2.160

破同分中，敘外救云：外法非趣生，故不立同分者，應難云：趣是趣向義，外法可非趣，不以趣向解同分，何得以趣例同分？趣是趣向義，外法無同分，同分相似義，外法相似立同分。又難汝本云：內法是趣生，有情立同分，外法非情趣，外法無同分。汝本以有同智故，內法有同分，外法有同智，何得無同分？何得救言，外法非趣生，故不立同分？此上難古，下難正理師，餘轉難救，皆如疏述。述正中，問：大乘同分依外非情立不？答：據相似義，假立同分，故通內外。十門分別，如《樞要》說。問：若通一切立同分者，何故所引經云：此天同分此人同分，不云餘耶？答：經據顯勝，且說有情，既約相似假施，通外立有何失，准此既破於他，翻彼故外假立。

In refuting sabhāga, recounting the opponent's rescue that external dharmas are not realms of rebirth, hence sabhāga is not posited [for them], one should challenge: 'Rebirth realm' (gati) means 'tending towards'; external dharmas may not be rebirth realms, but since sabhāga is not explained through 'tending towards', how can one use rebirth realms as a parallel for sabhāga? If rebirth realm means 'tending towards', external dharmas have no sabhāga; but if sabhāga means 'similarity', then on the basis of external dharmas being similar, sabhāga should be posited. Furthermore, I challenge your original premise: internal dharmas are rebirth realms, so sattvas have sabhāga posited; external dharmas are not sentient rebirth realms, so external dharmas have no sabhāga. Your original premise held that because there is common cognition, internal dharmas have sabhāga; external dharmas also have common cognition, so how can they lack sabhāga? How can you rescue it by saying external dharmas are not rebirth realms, and therefore sabhāga is not posited? The above challenges the ancient [masters]; below challenges the Nyāyānusāra masters. The rest of the alternating challenges and rescues are all as recounted in the Commentary. In stating the correct view, it is asked: does the Mahāyāna posit sabhāga on the basis of external, insentient things or not? Answer: Based on the meaning of similarity, sabhāga is nominally posited; thus it applies to both internal and external. The ten-door analysis is as explained in the Pivot. Question: If sabhāga is posited across all things, why do the cited sūtras say 'this deva-sabhāga, this human-sabhāga', and do not speak of the rest? Answer: The sūtra speaks of sattvas based on what is prominent and superior. Since it is nominally designated based on similarity, what fault is there in extending its positing to the external? By this, having refuted the other school, conversely to them, it is nominally posited externally.