唯識二十論述記 2.87

2.87

述曰：釋上半頌，難有方分，正破經部，此亦設遮薩婆多師。今以理逼合有方分，非彼本計。如阿拏色中間一微，所對六方諸分各異，此一能對體既成多，云何成一？以可分故，如前已難。與六微合，令成六分，故此破一有分為因，應立量云：所執極微不應成一；必更可折有方分故；如諸聚色。若微不合，但可無間，無多分者，中間之微，隨不相合，所擬東處，非西等處，六面既殊，還應成六，不成一也。所執極微應不成一，所擬東處非西等故，如諸聚色無方分故。若所擬東非是東者，應擬西等亦非西等。若爾，此微應不成色，不可示其東、西等故，如心、心所。《成唯識》說：「又諸極微隨所住處必有上、下、四方差別，不爾便無共和、集義。」「和」破古薩婆多師；「集」破新薩婆多正理論師。又有方分，必可分折，便非實有。

The Commentary says: Explaining the first half of the verse, this objects to having spatial divisions, primarily refuting the Sautrāntikas, and also hypothetically warding off the Sarvāstivādins. Now, by force of reasoning, [the paramāṇu] is forced to conjoin and possess spatial divisions; this is not their original tenet. For example, regarding the central paramāṇu of an aṇu-form, the parts facing the six directions are all distinct; since this single [paramāṇu] facing them becomes manifold in essence, how could it be a unity? Because it can be divided, as was already objected to previously. Conjoining with six paramāṇus causes it to form six parts; hence this uses having parts to refute unity as the hetu. An anumāna should be formulated: 'The posited paramāṇu should not be a unity; because it is necessarily further divisible and has spatial divisions; just like aggregate forms.' If paramāṇus do not conjoin, but can only be contiguous without multiple parts, then the central paramāṇu, although not conjoined, has a place directed toward the east that is not the place directed toward the west, and so forth; since the six facets are distinct, it must again form six and cannot be a unity. 'The posited paramāṇu should not be a unity; because the place directed toward the east is not the west and so on; like aggregate forms lacking spatial divisions.' If the direction facing east were not east, then facing west and so on would also not be west and so on. If so, this paramāṇu should not be form (rūpa), because its east, west, and so forth cannot be indicated, just like the mind and mental factors. The *Cheng weishi lun* says: 'Furthermore, paramāṇus, according to where they reside, must have differences of up, down, and the four directions; otherwise, there would be no meaning of combined aggregation (saṃghāta).' 'Combined' refutes the ancient Sarvāstivādins; 'aggregation' refutes the new Sarvāstivādin Nyāyānusāra masters. Furthermore, possessing spatial divisions necessarily entails being divisible, and hence it is not real existence.