[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) › 2.153 # 唯識二十論述記 2.153 唯識二十論述記 2.153 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.153](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.153) 述曰：所依之境，既是一物，能依水虫，應無小者。彼小虫與麁大物依一所依，遍所依故；能依、所依量皆等故。舊論說言：最細水虫與大色同，應不可見。彼言色者，即形量色，若小水虫，不遍所依，量不等故，可見細者，所依不遍，故非是一，如說極微，六方分異，云何成一？應立量言：小水虫等依無隔，水能依應等所依之量；執所依一故；猶如無隔一頗胝迦一所依色。又應量言：小水虫等依無隔，水應不難見；執水一故；如無隔水。此中如前所說比量，論文既隱，唯強思惟施設安立，於宗、因、喻皆遮過失，恐文繁廣，不能具明，善因明者，自當詳悉。然或不須作其比量，准論但以道理徵之，亦不違理。 > Commentary: Since the relied-upon object is a single thing, the relying water insects should not be tiny. Those tiny insects and the coarse, large things rely on a single support and pervade that support; therefore, the relying and the relied-upon would both be equal in size. The older translation stated: "The most minute water insect, being identical to the large form, should not be visible." What it called "form" is form as shape and size. If the tiny water insect does not pervade the support, so that their sizes are not equal and it can be seen as minute, then the support is not pervaded, and hence it is not one. Just as it is said that if a paramāṇu has different spatial divisions in six directions, how could it become one? One should frame an inference: Tiny water insects and the like relying on water without separation, as relying things, should be equal to the size of their support; because you hold the support to be one; just like the form of a single support of unseparated crystal. Furthermore, another inference should be: Tiny water insects and the like relying on water without separation should not be difficult to see; because you hold the water to be one; just like the water without separation. In this, regarding the inferences stated above, since the text of the treatise is concise and implicit, they are established only through rigorous reflection; having avoided faults in the thesis, reason, and example, yet fearing excessive length, they cannot be fully articulated here; those skilled in Buddhist logic (hetuvidyā) will naturally understand them in detail. However, it is also not strictly necessary to construct these inferences; simply querying them according to the reasoning of the treatise also does not violate reason. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.152](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.152) - [Next: 2.154](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.154) - [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.2.153) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.153](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.153) · Pramāṇa