唯識二十論述記 2.79

2.79

The Commentary says: The preceding two verses refuted both conjunction and non-conjunction of paramāṇus as unestablished. The following verse refutes both possessing parts and lacking parts for the opponent's paramāṇu as unestablished. Herein there are three parts: first, the treatise's opening introduces the reason for non-establishment; next, the opponent interrogates in return; finally, the verse below is cited to demonstrate non-establishment directly. In introducing the topic, it first concludes the preceding conjunction and non-conjunction; then it introduces the subsequent faults of possessing and lacking parts. This concludes the preceding conjunction and non-conjunction. For the single real paramāṇu accepted in your school, whether you accept that they conjoin or do not conjoin, the faults are just as I have explained, concluding what was clarified above and setting it aside without further discussion.