成唯識論述記 1.620

1.620

述曰：下子段第四，合破救義。若彼遭難，復設救言：果色一一細分之時，即非是麁；多果色合故；成麁者。今難之云：即多父母因極微合時，足得成麁，及足成與色根為境，更用子果麁色何為？彼執父母極微眾多雖合，仍不成麁，果色不然，合即麁故。今立量云：多父母極微合應不成細；量等麁果故；如麁果色。果色多合，應不成麁；量等極微故；如父母極微。彼說父母極微設和合時，亦非根之境；麁色相合，即成根之境。今令父母極微合成根之境故，言足成根境。又立量云：多極微合，亦應成麁；許多合故；如麁果色。彼許多極微雖合，不成麁故也。多極微合，應成根境；許多合故；如麁果色。

The Commentary states: This is the fourth sub-section below, jointly refuting their defensive argument. If, when challenged, they offer another defense, saying: When the material effect is divided into individual subtle parts, it is not coarse, but because multiple material effects combine, it becomes coarse. Now we challenge them, saying: When multiple causal parent atoms combine, that is already sufficient to form coarseness and sufficient to serve as an object for physical sense faculties; what further purpose would a coarse material effect as a child-atom serve? They posit that although many parent atoms combine, they still do not form coarseness, but with the material effect it is not so, for upon combining it becomes coarse. Now we establish the syllogism: Multiple parent atoms when combined should not form subtlety; because they are equal in size to the coarse effect; just like the coarse material effect. Multiple material effects when combined should not form coarseness; because they are equal in size to atoms; just like parent atoms. They claim that even when parent atoms combine, they are not objects of the faculties, whereas when coarse matter combines, it becomes an object of the faculties. Now, since we make the parent atoms' combination form an object of the faculties, we say 'they are sufficient to form an object of the faculties.' Furthermore, we establish the syllogism: Multiple atoms when combined should also form coarseness; because you accept that many combine; just like coarse material effects. For they accept that multiple atoms, though combined, do not form coarseness. Multiple atoms when combined should form objects of the faculties; because you accept that many combine; just like coarse material effects.