Master Gangxiao: Expositions on the Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only — Verse 12

Verse 12

The atoms have no spatial extension; who then combines, and who is combined? If there is no combining, then composite forms cannot be established, nor can there be spatial extension.

Vasubandhu poses a question to the Vaibhāṣika masters: "Please explain more clearly—I don't quite follow what you're saying." Now, look at Vasubandhu: is he really failing to understand? Absolutely not. If he truly failed to understand, how could he have immediately seized upon the crucial weak point right after? You say that because atoms have no spatial extension, they cannot combine, whereas composite forms above the level of atoms possess spatial extension and therefore can combine. But of what are these composite forms composed? How do they come into being? The Vaibhāṣika masters were left speechless. Truly, all trouble comes from sticking one's neck out! Had the Vaibhāṣikas not volunteered to speak up for others, they would not have lost face like this. Of course, they are not as selfish as I am; they would sacrifice everything for the Dharma, even their heads, so how could they care about a bit of lost dignity? Vasubandhu says: You all claim that composite forms are composed of atoms. In other words, atoms are the source of composite forms. If the source is not clear, how can the river not run murky? If atoms have no spatial extension and fundamentally cannot combine, then composite forms cannot possibly come into being. Your claim that composite forms have spatial extension and can combine is utterly groundless.

Conversely, if composite forms have spatial extension and can combine, and since composite forms are composed of atoms, then atoms should also possess spatial extension and be capable of combining.

Thus we can summarize: if atoms have no spatial extension and cannot combine, then mountains, rivers, and the great earth cannot exist—this amounts to a violation of direct perception. If atoms have spatial extension and can combine, then this contradicts your own teachings.

The Vaibhāṣikas are still putting up a desperate struggle, but they are clearly in disarray, scrambling to salvage the situation. Of course, they cannot afford to admit defeat. Come to think of it, outsiders really aren't much help—the Vaibhāṣikas came here to assist you, and now that they're in trouble, you don't rush in to rescue them. Look how embarrassed you've made the Vaibhāṣikas; I even feel indignant on their behalf. The Vaibhāṣikas can only fight on alone: "Atoms have no spatial extension and cannot combine—this is perfectly sound. You ask how composite forms can exist if atoms cannot combine. Allow me to explain it this way: the true nature of composite forms is this—composite forms are simply atoms drawn extremely close together, close to a certain threshold, indeed remarkably close. To speak frankly, they have never actually combined; it is only because the distance between these atoms is so small that we conventionally label them as 'combined.' This is just an approximate designation, much like how we round 9.99 up to 10—there is a small margin of error involved, but such error is forgivable." Look at the Vaibhāṣikas' words: has not their tone already softened? It betrays a lack of confidence.

Let us offer another example. I recall seeing some film a long time ago—I forget the title now—and there was this scene in it: students had to run several dozen li to get to school, so they boarded at night. But the school had no dormitory, so every evening the students would push a few desks together to serve as a bedboard, sleeping on top of them, and during the day they would pull the desks apart to use as desks again. A single desk is like a single atom; pushing several desks together is called a bedboard—just so, when several atoms are brought close together, we call them a composite form. No matter how close the desks are pushed together, in essence they remain desks. Several desks pushed together cannot actually become a single, inseparable bedboard; "bedboard" is merely a conventional designation. When several atoms are brought close together and we call them a composite form, the "combining" we speak of is only an approximate expression; "composite form" is merely a conventional designation. Comrade Vasubandhu, could you please stop splitting hairs?

It's too late now. Had they said earlier that their theory involved a margin of error, Vasubandhu would have been too embarrassed to press the point. But opportunities vanish in an instant; if one fails to seize them at once, no amount of chasing will bring them back. There is no medicine for regret in this world. Too many problems have already surfaced; Vasubandhu has steeled his resolve to drive them to the wall.

Vasubandhu says: Very well. If, as you claim, composite forms are merely atoms at very close distances that have not actually combined, and if, as you also said earlier, composite forms possess spatial extension, then we can draw this conclusion: possessing spatial extension does not entail combining. Thus, in discussing whether things combine or not, we can completely set aside the property of spatial extension. Yet earlier you said that because atoms have no spatial extension, they cannot combine and no such thing as combining occurs. Isn't this reasoning somewhat redundant—like piling one head upon another, as the saying goes? This inference is hardly sound, is it…

Let us note a few more points below:

If atoms cannot combine, then are composite forms actually composed of atoms? Or rather, if atoms have never combined and are merely at very close distances to one another, then your earlier statement that atoms have no spatial extension and therefore cannot combine—is this not self-contradictory? You've given yourself a slap in the face!

Now let us pick up the pace and proceed to the thirteenth verse.