俱舍論記 2.176

2.176

「若異此者至許為有對」者，此下第三斥其短。就中，一破前第三師、二破前第二師、三破前第一師，從後向前破。此即初文。所以先破第三家，論主意謂大德極微無間最相隣近，將世友說中間稍遠。故言若異此大德說者，是諸極微應有間隙。中間既空，誰障其行不得前進相逼近耶？若各別住，中間有空即不相礙，如何許為障礙有對？又解：此文破《婆沙》中異說，不破世友，以世友解言無違故。為《婆沙》異說中有空隙，故今非彼。又解：此文亦破和合家，故《婆沙》七十三云「有作是說：極微展轉實不相觸，亦非無間，但和合住，彼此相近假立觸名。」彼論既言亦非無間，明知相去稍遠，不同大德。又解：假設破也。

Regarding the passage from "Were it otherwise" up to "are accepted as obstructive [resistance]": below this is the third [part], criticizing the deficiencies [of their views]. Within this, first it refutes the previous third master, second it refutes the previous second master, and third it refutes the previous first master, refuting them in reverse order. This is the first text. As for why it refutes the third school first: the author of the treatise considers that the Bhadanta's atoms are uninterruptedly adjacent in the closest manner, whereas Vasumitra's explanation places them somewhat further apart. Hence it says that were it otherwise than what this Bhadanta explains, these atoms would have intervals between them. The interval being empty, what would obstruct their movement from advancing and drawing closer to one another? If they were located separately and there were emptiness in between, they would not obstruct each other; how then could they be admitted to possess obstructive resistance (pratighāta)? Another explanation: this text refutes a divergent view within the Mahāvibhāṣā, not Vasumitra, because Vasumitra's explanation contains no contradiction. Because within that divergent view in the Mahāvibhāṣā there is an empty interval, it now criticizes that. Another explanation: this text also refutes the school of conglomeration (saṃghāta), as the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 73, says: "Some make this explanation: atoms do not in reality touch one another, nor are they without interval; but remaining in combination, close to one another, they are nominally designated as 'touching'." Since that treatise says "nor are they without interval", one clearly knows they are separated somewhat farther, unlike [the view of] the Bhadanta. Another explanation: it is a hypothetical refutation.