成唯識論述記 2.17

2.17

The Commentary states: Fearing there might be a divergent view that also says 'atoms lack obstruction', this refutation is now hypothetically raised. Furthermore, lacking spatial parts is called 'lacking obstruction', and the Sarvāstivādins and others also designate [atoms as] 'lacking obstruction'. The formal inference is: 'Your atoms cannot aggregate into pots and the like; because they lack obstruction; like non-material dharmas.' The unconditioned, non-associated [formations], citta, and caitasikas are all included in the example, so there is also no inconclusiveness. If aimed at the Sarvāstivādin, the reason should be changed to: 'Because they lack spatial parts, though having physical obstruction.' Since one cannot examine every single formal inference, by aligning carefully with the text's detailed division of passages, it may likewise be inferred.