成唯識論演祕 2.171

2.171

Answer: They are also unable to analyze it down to an indivisible atom. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'Without reaching the indivisible atom, it ceases entirely mid-way, just like a water droplet.' The explanation is: even using supernatural powers to disperse aggregated forms and eradicate their coarseness, that coarseness still does not reach the stage of an indivisible atom; it ceases completely mid-way, just like a water droplet—going from large to small, it also cannot reach the stage of an indivisible atom. The reason for this is that within aggregated forms there is no nature of an indivisible atom. If Buddhas and bodhisattvas analyzed coarse matter into atoms, the teaching should have spoken of it; since the teaching does not speak of it, does that not indicate its non-existence? Third, the flaw of possessing [an atom] but not perfuming [a seed]: even supposing Buddhas and bodhisattvas analyze coarse matter into atoms, do the six consciousnesses of a bodhisattva cognize this atom or not? If they do not cognize it, since it is analyzed by their own sixth mental consciousness in meditation, how could they not cognize it? In the stage of mastery, the consciousnesses and sense faculties function interchangeably; since the analyzed atom is admitted to be real matter, how could they not cognize it? If you say they do cognize it, why does it not perfume a seed? Because fruition is not yet perfected, one should not say that the intrinsic indivisible atom is a maturation aspect and therefore does not perfume and form a seed. If you say that [the fact that] maturation does not perfume and form a seed does not prevent the other six consciousnesses from perfuming and forming seeds, why then is it not stated? If you say it was not stated because it is easily understood, then who does not understand that maturation does not perfume—why then was that stated? Fourth, the flaw of asserting the same seed without a cause: if both the intrinsic and the reflection atoms perfumed and formed seeds, it might be possible for the two atoms of reflection and intrinsic nature to share the same seed. But since you yourself maintain that the reflection perfumes while the intrinsic nature does not perfume, by what cause could the two atoms share the same seed? If you say that although the intrinsic atom has no newly perfumed seed, it has an innate seed that shares the same seed with the reflection, this is also logically impossible: how could it be innate when it is established only through the analysis by Buddhas and bodhisattvas? Therefore, one cannot say that the intrinsic nature and reflection share the same seed. Fifth, the flaw of asserting the same seed for nominal and real: even supposing the intrinsic and reflection atoms share a single seed, the reflection is nominal and the intrinsic nature is real; since the real and nominal are different, how could their seed be shared? If you admit this, then different phenomena such as mind and matter should all share the same seed; admitting that contradicts the teaching, while not admitting it contradicts reason. Because of these five flaws, establishing intrinsic indivisible atoms is extremely difficult to rely upon. If the reflection atom is admitted to perfume a seed, there are also many kinds of faults, as extensively analyzed in the Deng.