成唯識論述記 2.11

2.11

The Commentary states: This takes up [the category of] obstructive [matter] to refute it. Herein there are three parts: first, refuting obstructive [matter]; next, refuting non-obstructive [matter]; and finally, refuting both together. Within the first, there are two parts: first, refuting the obstructive matter of the various schools as unestablished; and next, concluding that obstructive matter is unestablished. Within refuting obstructive matter there are three parts: first, refuting the constitutive atoms of obstructive matter as unestablished; next, refuting the constituted obstructive matter such as the eye [-faculty] as unestablished; and finally, setting forth the correct teaching. Within refuting the constitutive [atoms], there is first a general rejection; next, specific refutations; and finally, a general conclusion. This [segment] is the general rejection. The meaning of constitutive and constituted faculties and atoms will be known when we come to the text. However, according to the Sautrāntika and others, atoms are subsumed under the ten āyatanas such as the eye and visible form, yet they are not nominal; they are not grasped by the visual consciousness and the like, but rather form composite matter to serve as objects for the eye and so forth. Arguing from reason, they are grasped only by the mental consciousness and ought to be included in the dharmāyatana; but because the real follows the nominal, they are subsumed under the āyatanas of visible form and the like, since nominal matter is formed by gathering these real dharmas. In the Nyāyānusāra, [Saṃghabhadra] disputes with the Sautrāntika, not allowing that there is separate matter in the dharmāyatana, and therefore [asserting that] they are not subsumed under the dharmāyatana. For the Sarvāstivādin, atoms are subsumed under the āyatanas of visible form and the like, being precisely aggregated matter and so forth, because the fine is subsumed under the coarse. In the Mahāyāna, atoms are nominal matter belonging to the dharmāyatana, unable to form accumulated matter such as the eye. Accordingly, a fourfold analysis should be made: for the Sautrāntika, the ten āyatanas are coarse-nominal and fine-real; for the Mahāyāna conventional truth, coarse-real and fine-nominal; for the Sarvāstivādin and others, both coarse and fine are real; for the Ekavyāvahārika and others, both coarse and fine are nominal. Because the atoms posited by the Sautrāntika masters, the Sarvāstivādin, and others are each wide of the mark, they are now refuted. However, among the tenets of the various schools, those that are entirely wide of the mark are stated in passing, while those that are closer are not recounted. 'Such obstructive matter is definitely not real' is the general establishment of the thesis of rejection, directly aimed at the Sarvāstivādin. If aimed at the Sautrāntika, it is not what they accept; wishful to criticize what is not universally established as a constituted entity, because of its being obstructive, this explanation is not made. If it were said to be aimed at the Sautrāntika, it would commit the fallacy of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana), since they say that constituted obstructive matter is not substantially real. 'Because the constitutive atoms are not substantially real' is the general establishment of the reason of rejection; however, this reason contains the fallacy of being unestablished for one party (anyatarāsiddha).