瑜伽論記 14.301

14.301

若不等者，為體量故不等為據增上用故不等，若形量故不等而地大可得。餘三大形量小不可得而實是有者，彼三大小分應可得，以有分別形量故，少分既不可得故知此中無三大量，云：汝宗石中無不等大，少分無故，如彼空華。若據用故地大有用相可得三大有用小故不可得者，用依於體，體既無有而有用者，此執非理。量云：於石中定無水等威勢，以無體故，如兔角等。

If they are unequal, is their inequality due to substance-measure or due to prominent function? If the inequality is due to spatial measure, and the earth element is perceptible while the other three elements are imperceptible because their spatial measure is small, yet they really exist, then small portions of those three elements should be perceptible, because their spatial measure is differentiated; since even a small portion is imperceptible, one knows that the measure of the three elements does not exist here. The formal inference is: 'In a stone in your school, there are no unequal elements; because even a small portion is absent; like a sky-flower.' If it is according to function—that the earth element has an efficacious mark that is perceptible, while the three elements are imperceptible because their efficacious function is minute—function relies on substance: since the substance does not exist, yet function would exist, this claim is unreasonable. The formal inference is: 'In a stone, there is definitely no efficacy of water and so forth; because substance is absent; like the horns of a hare, and so forth.'