唯識二十論述記 2.177

2.177

The commentary says: The first line states the correct principle, showing that the objection proving the real existence of external objects is unestablished; the lower three lines refute the opponent's doctrine, clarifying that there is no direct awareness, thereby establishing the non-existence of external objects. However, the text of the old translation divided this into two sections, clarifying them separately before and after. In this verse, the first line is easy to understand, as will be known below. The first line adduces an analogy to refute the Sautrāntika; in the lower three lines, two categories are briefly refuted. First, it refutes the non-momentariness theorists such as the Saṃmatīya; second, it refutes the momentariness theorists such as the Sarvāstivāda. That is: when the direct awareness has already arisen, its seeing is already gone, so how can direct perception be admitted? This refutes the Saṃmatīyas and others. When the direct awareness has already arisen, its seeing and its object are already gone, so how can direct perception be admitted? This refutes the Sarvāstivādins and others. Since the doctrines of the Mahāsāṃghika and others differ, their refutation should also be recounted. As in the third line for the Sarvāstivāda, the word 'and' is an antithetical conjunction (dvandva), intending to show two objections, as will be known below.