成唯識論述記 2.29

2.29

述曰：此第三、極微有中、表，一應成六分難。又若無方分，即不能或和、或集。「和」對古薩婆多師；「集」對新薩婆多、順正理師，極微應不和、集成麁大物；以無方分故；如虛空等。然經部師說「有方分」，今難「無方分」，便非和者，故知唯古薩婆多師義。不然，因有隨一不成，隨所住處，設許汝不相觸著，相擬宜時，必有上、下及四方差別。所擬東邊，既非西邊，明有方分。東若非東，西應非西，便為非色，非謂極微。

The Commentary states: This is the third objection: that atoms having a middle and an exterior, one would have to comprise six parts. Furthermore, if they lacked spatial parts, they could not either combine (saṃyoga) or aggregate (saṃghāta). 'Combine' addresses the ancient Sarvāstivādin masters; 'aggregate' addresses the neo-Sarvāstivādins and the author of the Nyāyānusāra. Atoms should not combine or aggregate into coarse, large objects; because they lack spatial parts; like space (ākāśa) and the like. However, the Sautrāntika masters state that they 'have spatial parts'; now challenging them on 'lacking spatial parts' would not apply to those who combine, hence we know this applies only to the position of the ancient Sarvāstivādin masters. Otherwise, the reason would commit the fallacy of being unestablished for one party. Wherever they reside, even granting you that they do not touch one another, when they are juxtaposed, there must be distinctions of above, below, and the four cardinal directions. Since the juxtaposed eastern side is not the western side, it clearly has spatial parts. If east were not east, west should not be west; they would then be non-matter, not what is called atoms.