_Vyāsa-bhāshya_, III. 52, says that the smallest indivisible part of a thing is called a paramāṇu. Vijñāna Bhikshu in explaining it says that paramāṇu here means guṇa, for if a thing say a stone is divided, then the furthest limit of division is reached when we come to the indivisible guṇas. But if the prakṛti is all-pervading (_vibhu_) how can the guṇas be atomic? Bhikshu says (_Yoga-vārttika_, III. 52) in reply that there are some classes of guṇas (e.g. those which produce mind _antaḥkaraṇa_ and _ākāśa_) which are all-pervading, while the others are all atomic. In Bhikshu’s interpretation a moment is to be defined as the time which a guṇa entity takes to change its own unit of space. Guṇas are thus equivalent to the Vaiśeshika paramāṇus. Bhikshu, however, does not deny that there are no atoms of earth, water, etc., but he says that where reference is not made to these atoms but to guṇa atoms for the partless units of time can only be compared with the partless guṇas. But Vācaspati does not make any comment here to indicate that the smallest indivisible unit of matter should mean guṇas. Moreover, _Yoga-sūtra_, I. 40, and _Vyāsa-bhāshya_, I. 45, speak of _paramāṇu_ and _aṇu_ in the sense of earth-atoms, etc. Even Bhikshu does not maintain that paramāṇu is used there in the sense of atomic guṇa entities. I could not therefore accept Bhikshu’s interpretation that paramāṇu here refers to guṇa. Paramāṇu may here be taken in the sense of material atoms of earth, water, etc. The atoms (paramāṇu) here cannot be absolutely partless, for it has two sides, prior (_pūrvadeśa_) and posterior (_uttaradeśa_). Footnote 24: Bhikshu regards the movement of a guṇa of its own unit of space as the ultimate unit of time (_kshaṇa_). The whole world is nothing else but a series of _kshaṇas_. This view differs from the Buddhist view that everything is momentary in this that it does not admit of any other thing but the _kshaṇas_ (_na tu kskaṇātiriktaḥ kshaṇikaḥ padārthaḥ kaścidishyate taistu kskaṇamātrasthāyyeva padārthaḥ ishyate_. _Yoga-vārttika_, III. 52). Footnote 25: There is a difference of opinion as regards the meaning of the word “_kshaṇapratiyogi_” in IV. 33. Vācaspati says that it means the growth associated with a particular _kshaṇa_ or moment (_kshaṇapracayāśraya_). The word _pratiyogī_ is interpreted by Vācaspati as related (_pratisambandhī_). Bhikshu, however, gives a quite different meaning. He interprets _kshaṇa_ as “interval” and pratiyogī as “opposite of” (_virodhī_). So “_kshaṇapratiyogī_” means with him “without any interval” or “continuous.” He holds that the sūtra means that all change is continuous and not in succession. There is according to his interpretation no interval between the cessation of a previous character and the rise of a new one. Footnote 26: