俱舍論疏 13.62

13.62

論「若謂即以至聚集安布」，破轉救也。若謂聚顯極微不成長等，如聚香味不名為長。別有形微安布差別方名長等，此唯朋黨有部之宗別有形微，非極成故。形微既非極成，誰許安布以成長等？有人解：朋黨者，朋黨勝論師宗。非也。《成業論》破有部別有形色云「為是一物遍於色中名為長等？為積多微名為長等？若積多微名為長等，何異顯色？若謂一物遍於色中，即同食米齋部。」今言積其長微，故知不是朋黨外道之義。

On the Śāstra's statement: "If it is said that precisely through [... to ...] aggregated arrangement": This refutes a further attempt at defense. If one says that aggregating atoms of visible color does not form long and so forth—just as aggregating fragrance and taste is not called "long"—and that distinct shape-atoms with differentiated arrangements are only then called long and so forth, this is merely partisan bias toward the Sarvāstivādin school asserting distinct shape-atoms, which is not universally established. Since shape-atoms are not universally established, who would concede that they arrange to form long and so forth? Someone explained: "'Partisan bias' means partisan bias toward the Vaiśeṣika school." This is incorrect. The Karmasiddhi-prakaraṇa refutes the Sarvāstivādin assertion of distinct shape-matter, stating: "Is it a single substance pervading the color-form that is called 'long' and so forth, or is it an accumulation of many atoms that is called 'long' and so forth? If an accumulation of many atoms is called 'long' and so forth, how does it differ from visible color? If it is said that a single substance pervades the color-form, then this is identical to the Śaitīya school." Now [the opponent] speaks of accumulating its long atoms; hence we know that this does not mean the doctrine of non-Buddhists.