唯識二十論述記 2.68

2.68

The Commentary says: The first two phrases restate [the premise]; the latter two phrases interrogate it. If apart from paramāṇus there were aggregate forms, one could say the aggregate conjoins while paramāṇus have no conjunction. Since apart from paramāṇus aggregates do not exist, when you say the aggregate has conjunction, who is it that conjoins? 'Who' is a question, asking what the substance of that which conjoins in the aggregate is. To assist, an anumāna is formulated: 'Aggregates should have no conjunction; because they are identical to paramāṇus; just like paramāṇus. Paramāṇus should have conjunction; because they are identical to aggregates; just like aggregate forms.'