唯識二十論述記 2.75

2.75

The Commentary says: This reiterates the establishment, refuting that aggregates have no conjunction. Your aggregate forms are accepted to have spatial divisions and yet are not accepted to conjoin; this in turn demonstrates that paramāṇus having no conjunction is not due to lacking spatial divisions. If, due to lacking spatial divisions, one clings to paramāṇus having no conjunction, then since aggregates have spatial divisions, aggregate forms should have conjunction. Herein there are [the fallacies of] particularity of the predicate (dharma-viśeṣa-viparyaya), particularity of the subject (dharmi-viśeṣa-viparyaya), unestablished for either party (anyatarāsiddha), lack of universal presence in the subject (asvapara-pratijñārtha-hetu / bhāgāsiddha), unestablished sadhya-property in the positive example (sādhya-vikala), and non-exclusion of the sadhya-property in the negative example (sādhyāvyāvṛtta). Altogether there are six fallacies. Why is that? They formulate an anumāna: 'As I state, paramāṇus have no conjunction; because they lack spatial divisions; like the mind and mental factors.' Real paramāṇus have no conjunction, and non-real paramāṇus have no conjunction: these are particularities of the predicate; being the condition for real paramāṇus versus not being the condition for real paramāṇus, possessing resistance versus lacking resistance: these are called particularities of the subject. This hetu not only proves non-conjunction, but in like manner also proves the predicate's particularity of non-conjunction in non-real paramāṇus, and proves the subject's particularity of being a condition for non-real paramāṇus, as well as lacking physical resistance. If one says that your real paramāṇu lacks spatial divisions, it is unestablished for the other party (anyatarāsiddha). If one says that my nominal paramāṇu has no conjunction because it lacks spatial divisions, the hetu is not pervasive of the subject, because I say nominal paramāṇus have spatial divisions. If, because aggregate form also has no conjunction, it is taken as a positive instance (sapakṣa) of paramāṇus, the sadhya is unestablished (sādhana-vikala / sādhya-vikala), because aggregate forms are said to have spatial divisions. If, because aggregate form has spatial divisions, it is taken as a negative instance (vipakṣa) for the hetu, the sadhya is not excluded (sādhyāvyāvṛtta), because although aggregate forms have spatial divisions, they also have no conjunction. In this context, there is also the case where, as with lightning and the sun being positive instances of impermanence, the hetu 'produced by effort' is absent therein, so in the positive example the prover is unestablished; yet if lightning and the sun are taken as negative instances for the hetu, because they possess impermanence, the proved property is not excluded. As for using this as an analogy to object, this too is not correct: now the other party merely takes aggregates as the negative example for paramāṇus, and because it has no conjunction, there is the fault of non-exclusion of the property to be proved. It is not like the thesis that sound is impermanent where lightning and so forth are negative instances, so there is no fault of non-exclusion of the property to be proved. Therefore, this treatise now merely reveals that the other's anumāna has this fault of non-exclusion of the property to be proved; the remaining five faults are now shown additionally by me, not being the primary intention of the root treatise. Those skilled in hetuvidyā should examine this for themselves.