大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.18

1.18

極微等法一切常住等者。彼依世定所得天眼。自見其身及諸世間。從前世來無有斷絕。計我世間皆是常住。或依世定而起是見。計有為先有果生起。離散為先有果滅壞。謂從眾微麁物果生。分析麁物唯至微住。故極微常麁物無常。應告彼曰。我及世間為有變異為無變異。若有變異。執此世間皆是常住不應道理。若無變異則無差別。有種種相不應道理。極微論者我今問汝。所執極微有方分不。若有方分應可分析而計為常不應道理。若無方分則無質礙聚生麁色不應道理。

Regarding "dharmas such as atoms are all permanently abiding," and so forth: relying on the divine eye attained through worldly concentration, they themselves see their bodies and the worlds continuing without interruption from previous lives, and cling that the self and the world are both permanently abiding. Or, relying on worldly concentration, they give rise to this view: they cling that existence precedes the arising of fruitions, and dispersion precedes the destruction of fruitions; meaning, coarse physical fruitions arise from an aggregation of atoms, and when coarse things are analyzed, they only reach and abide at the atom; therefore, atoms are permanent and coarse things are impermanent. One should say to them: do the self and the world have alteration or no alteration? If they have alteration, clinging that this world is entirely permanently abiding is unreasonable. If they have no alteration, then there would be no distinction; having various characteristics is unreasonable. Atom-theorists, I now ask you: do the atoms you cling to have spatial division or not? If they have spatial division, they should be capable of being analyzed, and clinging to them as permanent is unreasonable. If they have no spatial division, they would have no physical resistance and could not aggregate to produce coarse rūpa, which is unreasonable.