俱舍論記 2.178

2.178

「又許極微至亦無斯過」者，此即破前第一師，論主以理總破。又許極微若有方分，觸與不觸皆有方分。若無方分，設許相觸，亦無有方分之過，何須避微相觸成過失耶？《正理》救云「有分、方分，名異義同。立無分言，已遮方分，如何於此復更生疑？謂許極微若有方分，既無方分如何可觸？又遍體觸、或觸一分，二皆有過，前已具論。如何復言若無方分，設許相觸亦無斯過？」若作俱舍師救，應反說言：汝立無方分，極微何不相觸？若言相觸成過失者，言不相觸亦不免過，對向六方面不同故。若言極微各有勢用，更相拒遏不相觸者，此之勢用為離體不？若離體者，同勝論業句義也；若不離體，體外無用，何不相觸？故亦成過。

Regarding the passage from "Furthermore, if atoms are accepted" up to "nor would there be this error": this refutes the previous first master; the author of the treatise refutes it comprehensively by means of reasoning. Furthermore, if atoms are accepted to possess spatial parts, whether touching or not touching, they both possess spatial parts. If they lack spatial parts, even if touching were admitted, there would likewise be no error of possessing spatial parts. Why must one avoid the touching of atoms as constituting an error? The Nyāyānusāra defends [this, saying]: "'Possessing parts' and 'possessing spatial parts' are different terms with the same meaning. By establishing the statement that they are without parts, spatial parts have already been excluded; how could doubt arise again over this, saying: 'if atoms are accepted to possess spatial parts'? Since they lack spatial parts, how could they touch? Moreover, touching with their entire substance or touching at one part—both incur errors, as discussed fully before. How then can he say again: 'If they lack spatial parts, even if touching were admitted, there would likewise be no this error'?" If one were to offer a defense as a Kośa master, one should counter by saying: You posit that they lack spatial parts; why then do atoms not touch? If you say that touching constitutes an error, stating that they do not touch does not avoid error either, because their facing the six directions differs. If you say that atoms each possess dynamic efficacy whereby they mutually resist and repel without touching: is this dynamic efficacy separate from their substance or not? If it is separate from substance, it is identical to the Vaiśeṣika category of action (karman); if it is not separate from substance, there is no efficacy outside substance—why then do they not touch? Hence it also constitutes an error.