[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [唯識二十論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834) › 2.116 # 唯識二十論述記 2.116 唯識二十論述記 2.116 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.116](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.116) 述曰：明一實微不成之中，上來第二。有合、無合；有分、無分，正答不成。此即第三，申我正義，總結不成。此四句中，上三句申正義，第四句結不成。答：若吠世史迦極微實句攝，通常、無常，空劫極微體是常住，成劫之微，此所生者，名為無常，其量方大，後大地等，合成一物，唯地、水、火、風是極微性，色、聲、香、味、觸，五大之德，體非是微。若順世外道與勝論同，然所生子微，同本因量，子微別與量德合故，可名為麁，非本極微亦量德合。薩婆多極微，十色處攝，七極微成阿耨，乃至展轉，積小成大。極微實有，故五識緣；阿耨以上皆是假有，五識不緣。經部極微隨何處攝，亦是實有積成大物，大物是假，五識所緣，其實極微，唯意識得。然大乘中，極微亦假，法處所收，但從大物拆成於小，名為極微，非從於小積以成大。《成唯識》說：「然識變時，隨量大小頓現一相，非別變作眾多極微合成一物。為執麁色有實體者，佛說極微，令其除拆，非謂諸色實有極微，諸瑜伽師以假想慧，於麁色相漸次除拆，至不可拆，假說極微。雖此極微猶有方分，而不可拆，若更拆之，便似空現，不名為色，故說極微是色邊際。」廣如《瑜伽》第三及五十四、《顯揚》第五及十六、十八等解。故今論言：覺慧分拆安布差別立為極微，若不折時，頓現一相，即立為聚，聚色可更拆，微假慧安布故。微與聚俱非一實，遮彼聚微體是實有，非我大乘聚亦稱假，有實色用，別從種生，非諸極微有此義故。 > Commentary: In clarifying that a single real paramāṇu is not established, the second point above was: having conjunction or lacking conjunction, having divisions or lacking divisions, which directly answered that it is not established. This is the third point: presenting our correct doctrine and concluding in summary that it is not established. Among these four lines, the first three lines present the correct doctrine, and the fourth line concludes that it is not established. Reply: For the Vaiśeṣikas, paramāṇus are subsumed under the category of substance (dravya) and span the eternal and non-eternal. Paramāṇus during the cosmic period of emptiness are eternal in essence; the paramāṇus during the period of formation produced by them are called non-eternal, and their measure is then large. Later, the great earth and so on aggregate into single entities. Only earth, water, fire, and wind are of the nature of paramāṇus; color-form, sound, odor, taste, and touch are qualities (guṇa) of the five great elements and their substances are not paramāṇus. For the Lokāyata, it is the same as the Vaiśeṣika, but the produced child-paramāṇus have the same measure as the original cause; because the child-paramāṇu conjoins distinctly with the quality of measure (parimāṇa), it can be called coarse, whereas the original paramāṇus do not conjoin with the quality of measure. For the Sarvāstivāda, paramāṇus are subsumed under the ten material āyatanas: seven paramāṇus make an aṇu, and so on in succession, accumulating the small to form the large. Paramāṇus are real entities, hence the five consciousnesses take them as objects; from aṇus upward, all are conventional entities, not taken as objects by the five consciousnesses. For the Sautrāntika, no matter which āyatana they are subsumed under, paramāṇus are also real entities that accumulate to form large objects; large objects are conventional, taken as objects by the five consciousnesses, while their real paramāṇus are apprehended only by the mental consciousness. However, in the Mahāyāna, paramāṇus are also conventional, subsumed under the dharma-āyatana; they are merely divided down from large objects into small ones and named paramāṇus, not accumulated from the small to form the large. The Cheng weishi lun states: "However, when consciousness transforms, according to the measure, whether large or small, it suddenly manifests a single image; it does not distinctly transform into numerous paramāṇus that aggregate into a single object. For those who grasp coarse form as having a real entity, the Buddha taught paramāṇus to cause them to analyze and eliminate it, not meaning that forms really have paramāṇus. Yogācāras, by means of conceptual wisdom, gradually analyze coarse material marks until they can be analyzed no further, and conventionally designate them paramāṇus. Although this paramāṇu still has spatial divisions, it cannot be further divided; if it were further divided, it would appear like empty space and not be called form; therefore it is said that a paramāṇu is the limit of form." This is explained at length in chapters 3 and 54 of the Yogācārabhūmi, and chapters 5, 16, and 18 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā. Therefore the treatise now states: through differences of arrangement by conceptual analysis, they are designated paramāṇus; when not analyzed, suddenly manifesting a single image, they are designated aggregates. Aggregated form can be further analyzed, and paramāṇus are arranged by conventional conceptualization. Hence paramāṇus and aggregates are both not single real entities. This excludes their view that the substance of aggregates and paramāṇus is real; it is not that in our Mahāyāna aggregates are also merely called conventional, for they have real material functions arising distinctly from seeds, whereas paramāṇus do not have this meaning. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.115](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.115) - [Next: 2.117](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.117) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834~en-mt.2.116) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.116](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.116) · Pramāṇa