唯識二十論述記 2.27

2.27

述曰：所執是一麁有分色，異本極微實有體者，諸有分色體，不可取故，如山地等。一一段別，即是分色，豈離於此別有一實麁有分色。應立量言：汝有分色非異分色；異諸分色不可取故；猶如分色。汝若又言誰謂有分異於分色，是不可取，因隨一者。應更破云：汝有分色定非異於諸細分色；汝宗自許實句色故；如細分色。或於前因，應置「許」字，我意自許異於分色，不可取故，無隨一失。此論言略，遂無「許」字。或應此論，但述其宗，略無因喻，謂立宗言：汝有分色體異汝諸分色定不可取；許實句色故；如細分色。論「故」字者，乘文便說，由此比量亦無過失。

Commentary: What is held is a single, coarse composite form having a substantially existing entity distinct from its original atoms; [this is impossible] because the entities of all composite forms cannot be apprehended, like mountains, the earth, and so forth. Each distinct part is just a partial form; how could there be a distinct, single, substantially coarse composite form separate from these? An inference should be established thus: 'Your composite form is not distinct from its part-forms (pratijñā); because, being distinct from all part-forms, it cannot be apprehended (hetu); like the part-forms (dṛṣṭānta).' If you were to say again, 'Who says that the composite is distinct from its part-forms? That it is unapprehended suffers from the fault of an unaccepted reason (asiddha-hetu)', one should further refute: 'Your composite form is definitely not distinct from its minute part-forms (pratijñā); because it is a form of the category of substance accepted by your own school (hetu); like the minute part-forms (dṛṣṭānta).' Or, in the earlier reason, one should insert the word 'admitted' [saying: 'because it is not admitted by our intention to be apprehendable as distinct from part-forms'], so there is no fault of an unaccepted reason. This treatise is concise in words, so it omits the word 'admitted'. Or it may be that this treatise merely states its thesis and abbreviates the reason and example, stating the thesis: 'The entity of your composite form, being distinct from your part-forms, definitely cannot be apprehended; because it is accepted as a form of the category of substance; like the minute part-forms.' The word 'because' in the treatise is used for the fluency of the phrasing; thus this inference is also free from fault.