成唯識論了義燈 2.53

2.53

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.