唯識二十論 偈十一 破極微一

Verse 10 said the atom (極微 paramāṇu) cannot be established; Verse 11 takes apart "joining" head-on (how atoms could stick together into a thing). Vasubandhu lays out a minimal picture: take one atom, and stick one neighbour onto each of its six directions — up, down, east, west, south, north. The trouble arrives at once. Either it now has six mutually distinct contact-faces — "it ought to become six parts" (一應成六分) — yet the very definition of an atom is "no longer divisible," so it contradicts itself; or the six neighbours can only crowd into one and the same point, so that the place seven atoms occupy is as big as the place one does, and, pressed on, a whole heap of atoms is still only as big as a single one — "the aggregate ought to be [as small] as an atom" (聚應如極微). Would not the mountains, rivers, and the great earth then have to be so small as to be invisible? Yet they are plainly coarse and visible — again it contradicts itself. To stick is wrong, and not to stick is wrong too.

Pressed this far, the strongest debate-opponent of the time — the Vaibhāṣika masters of the country of Kaśmīra (a branch of the Sarvāstivāda) — makes a retreating move: atoms themselves have no directional parts and do not join at all (dodging the fault of six parts), but the "aggregated form" (聚色) that atoms heap up into has directional parts, and it is the aggregated form that joins. He shifts the responsibility for "joining" off the atoms and onto the aggregate.

Vasubandhu replies with just four words, "this too will not do" (此亦不然), and does not unfold it — because to refute it one must first puncture this: the aggregate is nothing but atoms, and if the atoms do not join, what does the aggregate have with which to join? And if the aggregate too has directional parts, it likewise cannot escape the earlier dilemma. This stroke he saves for Verse 12. Verse 11 is the first, and most intuitive, gate in the refutation of atoms: stick and faces are born, crowd and it shrinks.

§Verse — plain reading

If one atom joins with six (the six in the six directions), then it ought to have six directional parts; if all six are crowded into one and the same place, then the whole heap (the aggregate) ought to be only as big as a single atom.

§Auto-commentary — plain reading

Vasubandhu explains this verse.

If one atom (paramāṇu) joins, in each of the six directions — up, down, east, west, south, north — with one atom apiece, then it ought to have six parts: because one location cannot hold another location (the six directions each occupy a place, and that is six directional parts). Conversely, if the place of one atom can hold six atoms (all crowded into the same place), then every aggregate (the "aggregated form," 聚色) that is built up ought to be only as big as a single atom — because, even stacked one upon another, they would not exceed that measure; and in that case the aggregate too ought to be so small as to be invisible (yet the aggregate is plainly visible).

The Vaibhāṣika masters of the country of Kaśmīra say: "It is not the case that atoms have any such thing as joining — because atoms have no directional parts, they thereby escape the earlier fault (of the six parts); only aggregated form has the principle of joining, because aggregated form has directional parts."

Vasubandhu says: this account too will not do. (As for why it will not do,) the next verse makes it clear.

Forcing the path of "joining" into a dilemma

Verse 10 said that the atom (極微 paramāṇu) cannot be established; from Verse 11 on, the dismantling begins head-on. First to be taken apart is "joining" (合) — how atoms could stick together into a thing. Vasubandhu does not argue in the abstract; he lays out a minimal geometric picture: take one atom, and let it stick, in each of its six directions — up, down, east, west, south, north — to one neighbour-atom apiece. The problem arrives at once.

Either it now has six faces. Since its six neighbours each stick on in a different direction, this one atom then has "the point where it touches the east side," "the point where it touches the west side," … — six mutually distinct contact-points: "it ought to become six parts" (一應成六分). But the very definition of an atom is "smallest, no longer divisible"; and now six directional parts have sprung up — it contradicts itself.

Or the six are crowded into a single point. If you refuse to give it six faces, then the six neighbours can only all crowd into the very same place the one atom occupies. But in that case, the place seven atoms occupy is as big as the place one atom occupies — and pressing this on, a whole heap of atoms stacked up is still only as big as a single atom: "the aggregate ought to be [as small] as an atom" (聚應如極微). Would not the mountains, rivers, and the great earth then have to be so small as to be invisible? Yet they are plainly coarse and visible. Again it contradicts itself.

To stick is wrong, and not to stick is wrong too — the path of "joining" is blocked at both ends.

The opponent's parry: it is not atoms that join, it is the "heap" that joins

Pressed this far, the strongest debate-opponent of the time — the Vaibhāṣika masters of the country of Kaśmīra (加濕彌羅國毘婆沙師, a branch of the Sarvāstivāda) — plays a fine retreating move: he says, you are right, so let us simply grant that "atoms themselves have no directional parts and do not join at all" (this dodges the fault of "six parts"); but the "aggregated form" (聚色, a coarse, large object) that atoms heap up into does have directional parts, and so it is the aggregated form that joins, not the atoms. In a word: he shifts the responsibility for "joining" off the atoms and onto the aggregate.

Vasubandhu replies with just four words

Vasubandhu's response is extremely short — "this too will not do" (此亦不然). He does not unfold here, in this verse, why; he only marks this retreat for now. For to refute it, one must first puncture a flaw: since aggregated form is nothing but atoms, and the atoms do not join, what does the aggregate have with which to join? And if the aggregate too has directional parts, it likewise cannot escape the earlier dilemma. This stroke he saves to deliver formally in Verse 12.

Carried forward (承衍)

Verse 11 forces the path of "atoms joining" into a dilemma and draws out the opponent's most respectable retreat (the aggregate has joining). But Vasubandhu deliberately holds back for now, marking only "this too will not do" — because the refutation of this retreat must be read together with Verse 12 to be complete: Verse 12 will point out that "the aggregate is not other than the atom," pulling out from the root the footing of "the aggregate can join while the atom cannot," and will further explain that "the atom has no joining — and the reason is not at all that it has no directional parts." In reading Verse 11, hold on to the geometric picture of this dilemma — stick and faces are born, crowd and it shrinks — it is the first, and the most intuitive, gate in the whole refutation of atoms.