俱舍論疏 2.207

2.207

論「若異此者至許為有對」，釋大德意可愛樂所以也，亦是兼破第三師也。《正理》破云「然大德說：一切極微實不相觸，但由無間假立觸名。經主此中顯彼勝德作如是言：此大德意應可愛樂。若異此者，是諸極微應有間隙，中間既空，誰障其行許為有對？今說大德如是意趣非即可樂亦非可惡，但應尋究如何無間仍不相觸。理未顯故，意趣難知。若說諸微全無間隙然不相雜，應成有分，不許處同復無間隙。既許無間，何不相觸？故彼涅間言定顯隣近義，此中涅言或顯定義，定有間隙故云定間，如定有熱故言定熱。是定有隙，理得成義。或顯無義，謂此中無如極微量觸色所間，故名無間。如是無間大種極微，隣近生時假說為觸。若作此釋，大德所言『一切極微實不相觸，但由無間假立觸名』，深有義趣。即由障礙有對勢力能相障行，許為有對，非許住處展轉相容而可說為障礙有對。豈怖處同遮無間住，許有間隙而無趣行。非有所怖，法性應爾。諸有對者處必不同，勿彼處同或成有分，故無間住理必不然，雖於中間有少空隙，而有對力拒遏其行。間隙者何？有餘師說：是無觸色。復有說言：都無所有。無觸色者，是空界色。」

The passage in the treatise from 'If it were otherwise' up to 'they are admitted to be resistant' explains the reason why the venerable master's view should be pleasing, and it is also concurrently a refutation of the third master. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, stating: 'However, the venerable master says: "All atoms do not actually touch; it is only due to contiguity that the name 'contact' is metaphorically applied." Here, the author of the sūtra-commentary, showing his superior virtue, makes this statement: "This venerable master's view should be pleasing. If it were otherwise, these atoms would have intervals; and since the middle would be empty, what would obstruct their movement so that they are admitted to be resistant?" Now, what is said regarding this intention of the venerable master is neither pleasing nor displeasing; one should merely investigate how, being without an interval, they still do not touch. Because the principle has not yet been clarified, his intention is difficult to discern. If one says that atoms have no interval whatsoever yet do not intermix, they must be composite parts; one does not admit that they occupy the same location and yet lack intervals. Since one admits they are contiguous, why do they not touch? Therefore, his word "contiguous" (nirantara) definitely expresses the meaning of proximity. Here, the word "nir-" either expresses determination—meaning there is definitely an interval, hence called "definitely spaced," just as something that definitely possesses heat is called "definitely hot." Thus, there being definitely an interval is a principle successfully established. Or else it expresses non-existence, meaning that here there is no tangible matter of the measure of an atom intervening; hence it is called "without interval" (nirantara). Primary element atoms that are thus contiguous are metaphorically said to touch when they arise in close proximity. If one makes this interpretation, what the venerable master said—"All atoms do not actually touch; it is only due to contiguity that the name 'contact' is metaphorically applied"—has profound significance. It is precisely due to the force of obstructive resistance being able to obstruct mutual movement that they are admitted to be resistant; it is not admitted that their locations mutually accommodate one another such that they could be said to possess obstructive resistance. Could it be out of fear of occupying the same location that one denies contiguous dwelling, while admitting there are intervals without obstructed movement? It is not that there is something to fear; the nature of phenomena must be thus. Resistant things must necessarily have different locations, lest occupying the same location cause them to become composite parts; therefore, contiguous dwelling is logically impossible. Although there is a slight empty interval in between, the force of resistance obstructs their movement. What is this interval? Other masters say: it is intangible matter. Others say: there is nothing at all. Intangible matter refers to the matter of the space element.'