成唯識論述記 2.85

2.85

述曰：此第四，敘眾賢論師新薩婆多義為前，非破色等法極微是緣，非所緣，以五識上無彼相故。便救之言：其五識上亦有極微相，色等雖有多相，一分是現量境，此諸極微共和集時，展轉相資各有麁相生，如阿拏色七極微相資，皆有阿拏色許大微相。如經部師：阿拏色是假法；薩婆多云：彼和合故非五識境，五識必依實法生故。今者所說：此相相資，各別極微能生五識，一處相近名和，不為一體名集，即是相近，體各別故，是實法故，有力生識，以相麁故識有此相，故所緣緣理具足有。今者非之云：設許有體，不諍緣義，不許彼有相資相故，故論但言「為此所緣」。今所緣義是所諍故，彼執不然，下破之也。如《觀所緣》有六義破，皆有比量，不能具述。

The Commentary states: This fourth part recounts the neo-Sarvāstivāda doctrine of Master Saṃghabhadra against the preceding: Refuting that the atoms of phenomena like visible matter are conditions and not objects because there is no aspect of them upon the five consciousnesses, they then defend by saying: Upon the five consciousnesses there is indeed an aspect of atoms; although visible matter and so forth have many aspects, one portion is the sphere of direct perception (pratyakṣa). When these atoms aggregate together, they mutually support one another and each generates a coarse aspect, just as when seven atoms support one another in an aṇurajas, each possesses a subtle aspect as large as an aṇurajas. As for the Sautrāntika master: An aṇurajas is a nominal phenomenon; the Sarvāstivādin says: Because it is combined, it is not the sphere of the five consciousnesses, since the five consciousnesses must arise relying on real phenomena. What is asserted now is: These aspects mutually support one another, and the individual atoms can produce the five consciousnesses; proximity in one place is called 'harmony' (he), and not becoming one entity is called 'aggregation' (ji)—that is, being close together, their entities are distinct; because they are real phenomena, they have the power to produce consciousness; and because their aspects are coarse, consciousness possesses this aspect, so the principle of the ālambana-pratyaya is fully present. We now reject this, saying: Even granting they have real entity, we do not dispute the meaning of condition, but we do not grant that they have the aspect of mutual support; therefore the treatise merely says 'serves as the object of this'. Since the meaning of object is what is now disputed, their attachment is incorrect, and is refuted below. As in the Ālambanaparīkṣā, there are six points of refutation, all having syllogisms, which cannot be recounted in full.