成唯識論述記 2.85

2.85

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.