成唯識論演祕 2.736

2.736

詳曰：釋相應等具辨如《燈》。疑「共」字錯，「共」字濫「俱」，寫者草誤；或「俱」與「共」義意相似，《疏》。取意談而非錯也。有部破云：「問：何緣不知俱有諸法？答：極相近故，如籌霑取安膳那藥置於眼中，極相近故眼不能見。」此亦如是。

Analysis: The explanation of "associated" and the like is fully analyzed as in the Deng. I suspect the character "shared" (gong) is an error; "shared" was confused with "co-existent" (ju) due to a scribal cursive error. Alternatively, the meanings of "co-existent" and "shared" are similar, and the Commentary was speaking broadly according to sense, not erroneously. The Sarvāstivāda refutes this: "Question: For what reason do they not know co-existent dharmas? Answer: Because they are extremely close. Just as when a stick dips into and takes collyrium (añjana) and places it into the eye, the eye cannot see it because it is extremely close." This is also like that.