[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 5.22 # 大乘法苑義林章 5.22 大乘法苑義林章 5.22 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5.22) 二釋違難者，《花嚴經》說「菩薩能知無色宮殿若干微塵成。」第五十四云「略說極微有十五種，五根、五塵、四大并法處實色。」如是等教處處非一。極微無者，彼如何通？雖無真實極微體性，如慧所析，彼量亦成。說知彼極微，如所析量故。五十四說「非集極微成麁色故。」《成唯識》說「諸識變時，隨量大小頓現一相，非別變作眾多極微合成一物。」《瑜伽》亦說「由諸聚色最初生時全分而生，最後滅時不至極微，中間盡滅猶如水滴。」此即意顯，如熱釜水煎微滅時，不至邊際諸色頓盡。長讀上文，又翻解此，諸色頓滅不至極微而即滅盡，非如水滴微至邊際，諸色終滅猶不至邊，況有真實極微可見。故但知慧之所析。又有體用中最極小者，所謂阿拏，說此名極微。此復何失？ > Second, explaining objections: The Avataṃsaka-sūtra states: "Bodhisattvas are able to know how many atoms make up the palaces of the formless realm." The fifty-fourth \[fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi\] states: "Briefly stated, there are fifteen kinds of atoms: the five sense faculties, the five sense objects, the four great elements, and the real matter included in the realm of mental objects." Authoritative teachings such as these are not singular in various places. If atoms do not exist, how are those \[texts\] to be reconciled? Although there is no real essential nature of an atom, as analyzed by prajñā, its measure is also established. It speaks of knowing those atoms because they are the measure analyzed \[by prajñā\]. The fifty-fourth \[fascicle\] states: "It is not that coarse matter is formed by aggregating atoms." The Cheng weishi lun states: "When the various consciousnesses transform, according to the greatness or smallness of the measure, a single image appears suddenly; they do not separately transform into many atoms that combine to make a single object." The Yogācārabhūmi also states: "When aggregated matter first arises, it arises in its entirety; when it finally perishes, it does not reach \[the stage of\] atoms, but perishes completely in between, like a drop of water." This shows the meaning: just as when water in a hot cauldron boils down to nothing, it does not reach a limit but all matter ends suddenly. Reading the above passage at length, and re-interpreting it: all matter ceases suddenly without reaching atoms and is completely extinguished; it is not that like a drop of water it reaches the fine limit, for when all matter finally perishes it does not even reach the limit, let alone there being real atoms to be seen. Therefore, one merely knows what is analyzed by prajñā. Furthermore, among real entities and functions there is that which is the most extremely minute, namely the aṇu; this is called an atom (paramāṇu). What flaw is there in this either? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5.21) - [Next: 5.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5.23) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.5.22) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.5.22) · Pramāṇa