俱舍論記 2.172

2.172

「又和合色至同類相續」者，此下第二師解。雖諸極微互不相觸，許和合色有方分故，相觸無失。由此拊擊得發音聲故，許此和合色相觸理，《毘婆沙》文義善成立。此和合名是觸，顯麁聚義。離散名非觸，顯細聚義，望麁名非觸。若不爾者，向遊塵中已有無量極微聚故，應名為觸。第一句謂和合離散，如團粉散空，此顯麁聚生細聚義。第二句謂離散和合，如攬紛成團，此顯細聚生麁聚義。第三句謂和合，和合如團粉復團，此顯麁聚生麁聚義，或生自類、或轉生麁，雖復前後少別，俱名麁也。若第二句前細後麁，體性懸別不可為例。若不爾者，轉更麁是何句攝？若言第二句攝，應無第三句也。若言麁自類生麁自類是第三句者，自類相望已得名觸，轉更生麁。何故前觸今，後名非觸耶？第四句謂離散，離散向遊塵，此顯細聚生細聚義，或生自類、或轉生細。雖復前後少別，俱名細也。第一句前麁後細，體性懸別，不可例此，此論且約同類相續。若不爾者，從向遊塵更生細色是何句攝？若言第一句攝，是即應無第四句也。若言細自類生細自類是第四句者，自類相望已名非觸，轉更生細，何故前非觸，今復名觸耶？

"Furthermore, aggregated matter ... homogeneous continuity": this is the explanation of the second master below. Although paramāṇus do not mutually touch one another, aggregated matter is admitted to possess spatial divisions, so their mutual touching is without fault. Because sound can be produced through this clapping and striking, the principle that this aggregated matter touches is well established in the text and meaning of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*. The term 'aggregated' here means touch, indicating the sense of a coarse aggregate. 'Dispersed' means non-touch, indicating the sense of a fine aggregate; relative to the coarse it is called non-touch. If this were not so, since in a mote of dust floating in a sunbeam there is already an aggregation of immeasurable paramāṇus, it would have to be called touch. The first phrase refers to the aggregated becoming dispersed, like a clump of powder scattering into the air; this indicates the meaning of a coarse aggregate giving rise to a fine aggregate. The second phrase refers to the dispersed becoming aggregated, like gathering powder into a clump; this indicates the meaning of a fine aggregate giving rise to a coarse aggregate. The third phrase refers to the aggregated [giving rise to] the aggregated, like a clump of powder becoming a clump again; this indicates the meaning of a coarse aggregate giving rise to a coarse aggregate, either giving rise to its own kind or progressively giving rise to what is coarser. Although there is a slight difference between before and after, both are termed coarse. In the second phrase, the prior is fine and the subsequent is coarse; their natures are vastly different and cannot serve as an analogy. If this were not so, what phrase would encompass that which becomes progressively coarser? If one says it is encompassed by the second phrase, then there should be no third phrase. If one says that coarse giving rise to coarse of its own kind is the third phrase, then viewed in relation to its own kind it has already obtained the name 'touch'; when it progressively gives rise to what is coarser, why was the prior called 'touch' and the subsequent now called 'non-touch'? The fourth phrase refers to the dispersed [giving rise to] the dispersed, like motes of dust floating in a sunbeam; this indicates the meaning of a fine aggregate giving rise to a fine aggregate, either giving rise to its own kind or progressively giving rise to what is finer. Although there is a slight difference between before and after, both are termed fine. In the first phrase, the prior is coarse and the subsequent is fine; their natures are vastly different, so this cannot be compared to that. This treatise is for the moment explaining homogeneous continuity. If this were not so, what phrase would encompass that which gives rise to even finer form from motes of dust floating in a sunbeam? If one says it is encompassed by the first phrase, then there should be no fourth phrase. If one says that fine giving rise to fine of its own kind is the fourth phrase, then viewed in relation to its own kind it is already called 'non-touch'; when it progressively gives rise to what is finer, why was the prior called 'non-touch' and now called 'touch' again?