成唯識論述記 2.14

2.14

述曰：自下別破薩婆多師、經部等計，皆說極微是實有故，皆是礙性，三有對中障礙有對，有對名「礙」。薩婆多極微是礙，若有方分名礙；薩婆多非礙，唯經部有。已下隨應。量云：此應是假；許質礙故；如瓶等物。五根、五境亦攝在中，無不定過。

The Commentary states: From here downward, it specifically refutes the tenets of the Sarvāstivādin masters, the Sautrāntika, and others, because all say that atoms are substantially existent, and all possess the nature of obstruction—among the three types of obstruction, obstructive obstruction (pratighāta-sapratigha); having obstruction is called 'obstructive'. Sarvāstivādin atoms are obstructive; if they have spatial parts, they are called obstructive. The Sarvāstivāda [asserts they] are non-obstructive [in spatial division]; only the Sautrāntika holds [they have parts]. Below, each is addressed accordingly. The formal inference is: 'These [atoms] should be nominal; because you accept that they are physically obstructive; like objects such as pots.' The five faculties and five objects are also included within this, so there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika).