瑜伽師地論略纂 3.74

3.74

第二難云「轉復羸劣，而言是常，不應理」者，量云：極微轉小，應非是常，損減羸劣故，如阿拏色。彼計比麁色損減無常故。　「若由異相，是則極微超過地、水等相」者，即應麁物是地、水等極微，乃非，許異相故。量云：極微應非地、水等相，許異微等地等相故，如心、心所；又亦不能生地等果，非種類故，如心、心所；又彼極微離地等外，更無異相可得，定非地等，非彼類故，如虛空等。此中二難，皆是本宗。

The second objection states: "To say that it becomes ever more weak and frail, yet is permanent, is unreasonable." The logical formulation (prayoga) states: Atoms become smaller, and thus should not be permanent, because of deterioration and frailty, like aņu-form. For they posit that compared to coarse form, there is deterioration and impermanence. Regarding "If it has a different characteristic, then atoms would exceed the characteristics of earth, water, and so forth": then coarse objects would be the atoms of earth, water, and so forth, yet they are not, because a different characteristic is admitted. The logical formulation states: Atoms should not possess the characteristics of earth, water, and so forth, because you accept that they differ from the characteristics of earth and so forth such as subtle particles, like the mind and mental factors; furthermore, they also could not produce fruits such as earth, because they are not of the same kind, like the mind and mental factors; furthermore, apart from earth and so forth, no other distinct characteristic can be found in those atoms, so they are definitely not earth and so forth, because they are not of that class, like space and so forth. The two objections here both pertain to their basic tenet.