法華玄論 4.119

4.119

答：有二釋。初云：一念實法生而即滅，尚自不固，何能運出？必須相續方有運義，如智斷惑、如明除闇。次釋云：若解斷惑，必須兩念，排他為難故也。今善體能運，一念有力，如一念智即能知境、一念善即能感樂，不假相續也。今又問：若一念無力、多念方有力者，一糸不能制象、多糸則能制，一渧不能滿、多集則能滿。《百論》破外道，盛有此說，覽之自見。又問云：一不能多遂能者，一沙無油、一盲不見，多集則能耶？答：他云盲沙分分無力，緌渧分分有力，故非問也。今明《百論》中外道亦有此釋，如論破之。

Answer: There are two explanations. The first says: An actual phenomenon in a single mind-moment arises and immediately perishes; since it is not even solid in itself, how could it convey [anyone] out? There must be continuity for there to be the meaning of conveyance, just as wisdom cuts off delusion, or just as light dispels darkness. The second explanation says: If one understands the cutting off of delusion, it must require two mind-moments, which poses difficulties for the other view. Now, the substance of good can convey; a single mind-moment has efficacy, just as a single mind-moment of wisdom can know an object, or a single mind-moment of goodness can induce joy, without relying on continuity. Now it is asked again: If a single mind-moment lacks efficacy and only multiple mind-moments have efficacy, then [it is like how] a single thread cannot restrain an elephant while many threads can restrain it, or a single drop cannot fill [a vessel] while a great accumulation can fill it. The Śata-śāstra refutes non-Buddhists and abounds with this statement; read it and see for yourself. Furthermore, it is asked: If the single cannot but the multiple subsequently can, then can one grain of sand produce oil, or one blind person see, such that a great collection of them can do so? The answer: The other says that each separate grain of sand or blind person lacks efficacy, while each thread or drop has fractional efficacy, so this is not a valid question. Now it is explained that non-Buddhists in the Śata-śāstra also had this explanation, which is refuted as in that treatise.