俱舍論記 13.56

13.56

「若謂即以至聚集安布」者，經部牒說一切有部救破。汝若謂即以形微安布名為長等，顯前所說無別微因，有不成過。此唯朋黨之心，我不許有，非極成故。又解：此唯朋黨勝論師宗。彼宗顯、形體性各別，非極成故。若形微體彼此極成，可得安布以為長等。非形微體彼此極成猶如顯色，云何安布？《正理》述說一切有部救云「豈不已說即形極微，如是安布眼識所得積集差別假立長等。」准《正理》救意，立假長等意識所知非五識了。若作俱舍師破：汝宗本意立長等實，為難所逼言長等假。

On "If it is said that precisely by means of ... agglomeration and configuration": The Sautrāntika cites and refutes the Sarvāstivādin's rescue: If you say that precisely the configuration of shape atoms is called 'long' and the like, thereby showing that the previously stated reason 'lacking distinct atoms' incurs the fault of being unproven (asiddhi), this is merely partisan bias, for I do not accept it, as it is unestablished for both parties (aprasiddha). Another explanation: This is merely partisan bias toward the Vaiśeṣika doctrine. In their school, visible color and shape have distinct individual essences, which is unestablished for both. If the substantial entity of shape atoms were established for both, they could be configured to form 'long' and the like; but the substantial entity of shape atoms is not established for both like visible color—how could they be configured? *Nyāyānusāra* recounts the Sarvāstivādin's rescue, stating: "Has it not already been said that it is precisely shape atoms, configured in such a way, that are obtained by eye-consciousness as an accumulated differentiation, nominally designated as length and the like?" In accord with the intent of the *Nyāyānusāra*'s rescue, establishing nominal 'long' and the like is known by mental consciousness, not cognized by the five consciousnesses. If refuting from the position of the *Kośa* master: The original intent of your school was to establish 'long' and the like as real; pressed by objections, you now claim that 'long' and the like are nominal.