成唯識論述記 1.489

1.489

實句中五地、水、火、風、意皆有礙。意全四本，父母極微是常，非此中破。今破四子微等。此中二量：一、云汝此四種無常、有礙者，應可分折；有方分故；如軍、林等。唯得有質礙為宗，簡別他句無礙、無常者，無方分故。彼許軍、林體有方分，然可分折，多虛踈法成軍、林故。子實等不然，以體實有堅密，一處不可折故。軍謂四軍；林謂竹樹等。二、云此等諸法應非實有；有方分故；如軍、林等。父母極微有圓量德合故，無方分。其子微等上有方分。意雖有礙，量如子微，然無方分，體是常住，非此所破，無不定失。又以可分折故為因，難非實有，為第三量，已破之宗得成因故。然以理觀，唯此非實一句為宗，方分可折是二別因。彼宗理許可分折故，如斧等，斷成多分故。便、應二字文便故來，非則宗法，或有質礙為因，亦得。

Among the category of substance, five—earth, water, fire, wind, and manas—all have obstruction. Manas entirely, and the four originals, the parental paramāṇus, are eternal, and are not what is refuted here. Now he refutes the four secondary atoms and so forth. Here there are two inferences. The first states: These four kinds of yours that are impermanent and have obstruction should be divisible; because they have spatial parts; like an army, a forest, and the like. Only having physical obstruction can be taken as the subject, to differentiate it from the unobstructed, impermanent ones of other categories, because the latter lack spatial parts. They admit that an army and a forest have spatial parts and are divisible, because an army and a forest are formed of many loosely aggregated dharmas. Secondary substances and the like are not so, because their substances are real, dense, and solid, being at a single locus and indivisible. 'Army' refers to the fourfold army; 'forest' refers to bamboos, trees, and the like. The second [inference] states: These dharmas should not be real existents; because they have spatial parts; like an army, a forest, and the like. The parental paramāṇus, because of inhering with the quality of spherical magnitude (parimaṇḍala), have no spatial parts; their secondary atoms and so on have spatial parts. Although manas has obstruction and has the measure of a secondary atom, it has no spatial parts and its substance is eternal, so it is not what is refuted here, and there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness. Furthermore, taking being divisible as the reason to press that they are not real existents constitutes a third inference, because a thesis already refuted can be used as a reason. But viewing it rationally, only this phrase 'not real' is the thesis, and having spatial parts and being divisible are two distinct reasons. For that school's reason admits that they are divisible, as when cut into multiple parts by an axe or the like. The two words 'then' and 'should' are introduced for rhetorical fluency, not that they are part of the property of the thesis; or taking having physical obstruction as the reason is also permissible.