瑜伽師地論略纂 14.28

14.28

The treatise says: "Furthermore, through five marks one should know that atoms are improperly speculated upon." First, it refers to the Vibhāṣā's [view that] although many atoms do not abide independently, they have their own intrinsic nature within gathered form. This directly refutes the Sarvāstivāda, and incidentally refutes the Vaiśeṣika. Second, they have arising and cessation; this is precisely the Sarvāstivāda. The parent atoms of the Vaiśeṣika are permanent and the others are impermanent; now it incidentally refutes them. Third, this is precisely the Vaiśeṣika, because they postulate that: at the beginning of an eon, the parent atoms dwell scattered in various places within the empty eon; later, at the time of the formation eon, the parent [atoms] combine and produce child atoms, which is called "combination." Fourth, this is precisely the Sarvāstivāda, because the aggregation of atoms accomplishes gathered form. Another explanation says: It is the doctrine of the Sāṃmitīya, because they lack adjacent-void [atoms] and have accumulation. Fifth, the Vaiśeṣika holds that because parent atoms combine, they produce child seeds, and the seeds are called heavy, coarse form. Because an atom has no substance, since it has no substance it has neither arising nor cessation; having neither arising nor cessation, it has neither combination nor dispersion, and one cannot say that gathered form arises from atoms, and so forth. By this reasoning one knows that, like the preceding five views, all are improper.