成唯識論演祕 1.861

1.861

此一頌文而量有五：一、彼論云：若無隔別眼所行境執為一物，應無漸次行大地理，若下一足至一切故。量云：無障隔處，此下一足時，所未至處時亦應已至；汝執一故；猶如於此。二、彼論云：又應俱時於此，於彼無至未至，一物一時理不應有得、未得故。量云：汝宗世間無隔斷物，無有一法有至、未至；執是一故；如手握珠。三、彼論云：又一方處應不得有多象、馬等有間隙事，若處有一亦即有餘。云何此、彼可辨差別？量云：於此無障隔一方處所有多象、馬，一象住地應餘馬等亦住此地；執是一故；如此象住地。四、彼論云：或二，如何可於一處有至、未至中間見空？量云：無隔一處象、馬二居，應不得有中間空處；執是一故；如手握珠。五、彼論云：又亦應無小水虫等難見細物，彼與麁物同一處量應等故。量云：小水虫等依無流水能依，應等所依之量；執所依一故；由如無流一頗胝迦一所依色。

For this one stanza of text, there are five syllogisms: First, that treatise states: 'If what is unseparated and within the range of the eye is held to be a single entity, then there could be no principle of walking progressively over the great earth, because if one sets down one foot, one would reach everywhere.' The syllogism runs: 'In an unobstructed place, at the time when this one foot is set down, the place not yet reached should also already be reached at that time; because you hold it to be one; just like this place.' Second, that treatise states: 'Furthermore, simultaneously at this place and at that place, there could be no distinction between having reached and not yet reached, because it is unreasonable for a single entity at one time to be both attained and not attained.' The syllogism runs: 'In your school's world, regarding an unseparated entity, no single dharma has the state of having reached or not yet reached; because it is held to be one; like a pearl grasped in the hand.' Third, that treatise states: 'Furthermore, in one regional location there should not be many elephants, horses, and the like with intervals between them, because if one exists in that place, the others also exist there; how could a difference between this and that be distinguished?' The syllogism runs: 'Regarding the many elephants and horses existing in this one unobstructed regional location, the ground where one elephant stands should also be where the remaining horses and so forth stand; because it is held to be one; like the ground where this elephant stands.' Fourth, that treatise states: 'Or in the case of two, how could there be reaching and not reaching in one place while seeing empty space in between?' The syllogism runs: 'Where two things, an elephant and a horse, reside in one unseparated place, there should not be an intermediate empty space; because it is held to be one; like a pearl grasped in the hand.' Fifth, that treatise states: 'Furthermore, there should also be no tiny water insects and other subtle things that are difficult to see, because they would be co-located with gross things and their dimensions should be equal.' The syllogism runs: 'The supported things, such as tiny water insects, relying upon non-flowing water, should be equal to the dimension of that which supports them; because that which supports them is held to be one; just like the single supporting matter of a single motionless crystal.'