金剛般若論會釋 3.54

3.54

又第四重徵云，何故前言若微塵第一義中是有，佛則不說是微塵眾？次下第五引佛前說，順成佛前說微塵非微塵，故知問多不，還欲顯非微塵。故論說云，世尊說微塵聚非聚，是名微塵聚者，以此聚體不成就故。若異此，雖不說，亦自知是聚，何義須說？言佛問塵多不，言明微塵體空，若不爾，破色身為多塵，凡夫、二乘皆自知是多塵，何須問塵多不？故知此問是無所見方便。上來以二種方便破色身，明相分無所取非有竟。

Again, the fourth point, the repeated interrogation, asks: Why was it said earlier that if atoms were existent in the ultimate truth, the Buddha would not speak of them as a multitude of atoms? Next, the fifth point cites the Buddha's prior statement to conform to and establish that the Buddha previously spoke of atoms as non-atoms; hence we know that asking whether they are many still intends to reveal that they are not atoms. Therefore, the treatise says: when the World-Honoured One says that a collection of atoms is not a collection, and is called a collection of atoms, it is because the substance of this collection is unestablished. If it were otherwise, even without being stated, one would naturally know it is a collection; for what reason would it need to be stated? The statement that the Buddha asks whether the atoms are many clarifies that the substance of the atoms is empty; were it not so, in breaking down the form-body into many atoms, ordinary people and the two vehicles would all naturally know they are many atoms, so why would he need to ask whether the atoms are many? Therefore, we know that this question is an expedient means of non-seeing. Above, having refuted the form-body with the two kinds of expedient means, the explanation that the objective aspect is devoid of an apprehended object and is non-existent is concluded.