唯識二十論述記 2.64

2.64

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.