金剛般若論會釋 3.54

3.54

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.