成唯識論了義燈 2.53

2.53

論：必有上下四方差別，計彼本宗，理無方分。今以量逼，令有方分，上下六方各相擬儀，若無方分應相涉入。故《婆沙》中尊者大德說：極微無方分而不相至，流至現在，相近名至。謂此極微，在未來世二各相離，流至現世方始相近。而隔隣虛中無間故名至，非合名至。世友菩薩非彼說云：若如爾者，應前極微住至後念，彼宗自計一剎那住，便入過去，若至現在，方始相近，名為至者，即二剎那。應此落謝之微流至現世，以住現世方相近故。世友解云：謂諸極微同在現在者，各去隣虛中無間隙，名之為至。《俱舍論》中天親破云：何緣能礙，令中間隙？然此方分，四句分別：一、經部實極微有方分；二、薩婆多實極微無方分；三、大乘假極微亦有方分、亦無方分。所以照者，大假色中無極微故，云無方分，然約假拆麁至極微，可說有方分。方分有二：一方之分，是彼大色之分，不是更拆此微為分；二方即分。《瑜伽》論言：有方無分，更無細分故者，以相擬宜名有方，而更不可拆，故云無分，若更拆之即意作空解，故變似空相，闕第四句。

The treatise says: 'They must have distinctions of above, below, and the four directions.' According to their basic tenet, in principle they lack spatial parts. Now, cornered by inference, they are forced to have spatial parts, with the six directions of above and below facing one another; if they lacked spatial parts, they would have to interpenetrate. Therefore, in the Mahāvibhāṣā, the Venerable Bhadanta says: Paramāṇus lack spatial parts and do not reach one another; flowing into the present, their proximity is called 'reaching.' That is, these paramāṇus are mutually separated in the future time; only upon flowing into the present time do they become proximate. Because there is no interval between them across the adjacent void, it is called 'reaching,' not that combining is called 'reaching.' Bodhisattva Vasumitra criticized his explanation, saying: If it were as you say, the prior paramāṇu should abide into the subsequent moment; yet their school itself maintains that it abides for only one moment and then enters the past; if it is only upon reaching the present that they become proximate and this is called 'reaching,' that would be two moments. This dying paramāṇu would have to flow into the present time, because it becomes proximate only by abiding in the present time. Vasumitra explained: Paramāṇus that are together in the present are each separated by the adjacent void without a gap, and this is called 'reaching.' In the Abhidharmakośa, Vasubandhu refutes this: What condition could obstruct them so as to cause a gap between them? However, regarding these spatial parts, there is a fourfold categorization: 1. The Sautrāntika's real paramāṇu has spatial parts; 2. The Sarvāstivāda's real paramāṇu lacks spatial parts; 3. The Mahāyāna's conceptual paramāṇu both has spatial parts and lacks spatial parts. The reason for this observation is: because within gross conceptual form there are no paramāṇus, it is said to lack spatial parts; yet in terms of conceptually dividing the gross down to a paramāṇu, it can be said to have spatial parts. There are two kinds of spatial parts: first, a part of space, which is a part of that gross form, not that this paramāṇu is further divided into parts; second, space itself is the part. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: 'It has spatial direction but no parts, because there are no further subtle parts'—because facing toward each other is called having spatial direction, yet it cannot be further broken down, it is said to lack parts; if one breaks it down further, the mind conceives an understanding of emptiness, so it transforms to resemble the appearance of emptiness. The fourth proposition is absent.