成唯識論述記 2.91

2.91

述曰：三、微相失本難。《所緣論》頌云：「非形別故別，形別非實故。」乃至廣說，更有一頌。今難之云：共和集位一一極微，應捨根本極微圓相，行烈既別，相資亦殊，即是極微失本圓相。量云：瓶等相資之極微應非圓相；體即相資相故；如相資相。極微本是團圓之相，今既不爾，故失本相。由此又解，既無方分，如何行位令其相別？相別唯在假瓶等上，非極微故，此亦非由行位異令見異也。

The Commentary states: Third is the objection concerning the loss of the atom's original mark. A verse in the Ālambanaparīkṣā states: "They are not distinct due to distinct shapes, / Because distinct shapes are not real," continuing up to a full explanation, with yet another verse. Here it is objected: in the state of collective aggregation, each individual atom would have to discard its fundamental mark of atomic roundness; since spatial arrangements differ, mutual assistance also differs, which means the atoms lose their original round mark. An inference is formulated: "The mutually assisting atoms of a jar and the like should not have a round mark; because their substance is identical with the mark of mutual assistance; like the mark of mutual assistance." Atoms originally have a round mark; since here they do not, they lose their original mark. From this it is further explained: since [atoms] have no spatial parts, how could spatial arrangement cause their marks to differ? Differences in mark exist only upon the conceptual jar and the like, not upon the atoms; therefore, it is also not the case that different spatial arrangements cause different perceptions.