唯識二十論 偈十 三難

Through §I (answering the objections) and §II (recovering the twelve sense-fields), Vasubandhu has been guarding and gathering in; from Verse 10 on he turns from defence to attack, dismantling head-on the claim that "the external object exists really, apart from consciousness." His method is hard: you say there really is, out there, a "colour-and-form" (色) that is being seen — then what exactly is its substance? Count as you may, there are only three possibilities, and Vasubandhu blocks them all in one breath.

First, it is "one block" (one) — like the Vaiśeṣikas' "whole-possessing form" (有分色, the integral form). Refuted: that whole would count only if it could be grasped on its own apart from the parts, but you cannot grasp it — "the substance of a whole-possessing form is other than the form of the parts, and so cannot be grasped" (有分色體異諸分色不可取). Second, it is "a heap of separate atoms" (many atoms). Refuted: a single atom is simply not something the eye can grasp — "the atoms, each on their own, cannot be grasped" (極微各別不可取). Third, it is "atoms pieced together" (aggregated, assembled). Refuted: for this to hold, the premise must be that "a single real atom" first stands firm — yet this very premise does not hold: "the principle of a single real atom is not established" (一實極微理不成), and once the foundation collapses, what is pieced up on it collapses too.

The three objections look like three roads, but all are tied to a single pillar: can the atom be established at all? "Aggregate" does not even set up a fresh argument — it points straight to "the atom is not established." The closing line "how can it not be [thus]?" (云何不成) hands the whole weight to the three verses below (v.11 refutes combining, v.12 closes off the retreat of assembled form, v.13 refutes directional parts, v.14 drives "one whole stretch of object" back into many parts — with walking, elephants and horses, water-insects, and the like — and seals it into consciousness-only). The measure to keep: what is refuted is the philosophical position "form as an external object existing really apart from consciousness," not the Buddha-taught colour-and-form sense-field (§II has already made plain that the colour-and-form sense-field is by hidden intent, the outward face of what consciousness transforms). Verse 10 is §III's declaration of war.

§Verse — plain reading

Because that (external) object is neither "one" (a single whole), nor "many" (a host of separate atoms), nor again something of the "aggregated, assembled" sort — because "the atom" (paramāṇu) itself simply cannot be established.

§Auto-commentary — plain reading

Vasubandhu explains this verse.

What is this saying? Suppose there really were a colour-and-form sphere (and the rest) apart from cognition, serving as the separate object of the cognition of colour-and-form. Then this external object would have to be one of three things: either it should be "one" — like the "whole-possessing form" (有分色, a single integral form) that the Vaiśeṣikas cling to; or it should be "many" — as some cling to there really being many atoms, each separately serving as the object; or it should be "many atoms aggregated and assembled" — as some cling to there really being many atoms, all of them together aggregated and assembled and serving as the object.

But: that external object, by rights, cannot be "one," because the substance of a "whole-possessing form" is other than the form of each of the parts, and so cannot be grasped. By rights it cannot be "many" either, because the atoms taken one by one, each on its own, cannot be grasped. And by rights it cannot be "an aggregate or assemblage serving as the object," because "a single real atom" — that very thing — simply cannot be established.

Why is it that the atom cannot be established? Vasubandhu makes this clear with the verse that follows.

Switching battlefields: from "answering objections" to "attacking external objects head-on"

Through §I (answering the four objections) and §II (recovering the twelve sense-fields by hidden intent), Vasubandhu has been on the defensive — "guarding" and "gathering in." From Verse 10 on, he turns from defence to attack, dismantling head-on the position that "the external object exists really, apart from consciousness." His method of attack is hard: he will not let you stay vague but presses you directly — you say there really is, out there, a "colour-and-form" (色) that is being seen; then I ask you, what exactly is its substance like? Count as you may, there are only three possibilities, and Vasubandhu blocks all three roads in one breath.

Three roads, every one a dead end

First road: it is "one block" (one). Like the "whole-possessing form" (有分色) the Vaiśeṣikas speak of — a single integral form, not divided into parts. Vasubandhu refutes it: if that "whole" really existed, it ought to be graspable on its own apart from the several parts; but you cannot grasp any "whole apart from the parts" — "the substance of a whole-possessing form is other than the form of the parts, and so cannot be grasped" (有分色體異諸分色不可取故). This road does not go through.

Second road: it is "a heap of separate atoms" (many). That is, countless atoms (paramāṇu), each on its own serving as the object. Vasubandhu refutes it: a single atom is simply not something the eye can grasp — "the atoms, each on its own, cannot be grasped" (極微各別不可取故). What is before your eyes is plainly a stretch of colour, not isolated atoms one by one. This road too does not go through.

Third road: it is "atoms pieced together" (aggregated, assembled). Neither a pure whole nor pure loose sand, but many atoms aggregated and assembled. Vasubandhu refutes it: for this road to hold, the premise must be that "a single real atom" first stands firm; but this very premise does not hold — "the principle of a single real atom is not established" (一實極微理不成故). The foundation has collapsed, so the building pieced up on it collapses of itself.

The three objections in fact gather into one question

See how tight Vasubandhu's layout is: one, many, aggregate — seemingly three independent roads, yet all of them tied to a single pillar — can the atom be established at all? Once "one" is refuted and "many" is refuted, "aggregate" does not even set up a fresh argument; it simply points straight to "the atom is not established." So although this verse has three objections on its surface, at its core it presses only a single question. The closing line "how can it not be [thus] established?" (云何不成？) is no rhetorical flourish; it hands the whole weight to the three verses below — Verses 11, 12, and 13 come precisely to take "a single real atom" apart inch by inch.

A measure that must be made clear first

Take care: what Vasubandhu refutes is "form as an external object existing really apart from consciousness" — it is not a refutation of the Buddha's teaching of the "colour-and-form sense-field" (色處). The Buddha taught the colour-and-form sense-field, and §II has already made clear that this is by hidden intent, the outward face of what consciousness transforms. So §III does not sing against the Buddha; it contends only with the schools that "read the colour-and-form sense-field as real atoms outside the mind." What is refuted is the philosophical position of "really existing atoms," not a refutation of the phenomenon, nor a refutation of the Buddha's word — this boundary-line the whole of §III must hold.

Carried forward (承衍)

Verse 10 sets down the master-objection "the external object is neither one, nor many, nor an aggregate," concentrating all the firepower onto the single point "can the atom be established?" Next, Vasubandhu splits his forces into three columns and dismantles it one by one: Verse 11 refutes the "combining" of atoms (however atoms might stick together, it is contradictory), Verse 12 closes off the line of retreat that "assembled form can combine," Verse 13 refutes the "directional parts" (方分) of the atom (whether or not it has directional faces, neither works), and Verse 14 then uses everyday examples — walking, elephants and horses, water-insects, and the like — to drive "one whole stretch of object" back into many parts, sealing it into consciousness-only. Read Verse 10 remembering that it is §III's declaration of war: block all three roads at once, and force you to answer the one and only question.