唯識二十論述記 2.64

2.64

述曰：自下正破極微不成，於中有二：上二句，但正徵詰；下二句，設破轉救。汝說：極微既無合義，極微即聚，聚有合者，非微是誰？或若聚色，亦無相合，故知不由無方分故，極微不合，聚有方分，亦不合故。

The Commentary says: From here on is the refutation proper showing that paramāṇus are unestablished. In this there are two parts: the first two lines merely examine and interrogate directly; the second two lines hypothetically refute their revised defense. You say: since paramāṇus have no property of conjunction, and paramāṇus are the aggregate, who is it that conjoins in an aggregate, if not paramāṇus? Or, if aggregate forms also have no conjunction, then one knows that it is not because of lacking spatial divisions that paramāṇus do not conjoin, because aggregates have spatial divisions and yet also do not conjoin.