成唯識論述記 2.14

2.14

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).