大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 12.25

12.25

疏「正理論中意符名等」者，正成第二義也。故彼論第三釋前頌竟者，以《正理論》總釋《俱舍》六百行頌文，但義順《婆沙》正理，故立順正理名。然正釋上頌，無異《俱舍》。《俱舍》則情無去取，《正理》則斷屬於名，此中疏略。彼有問曰：語教異名，教容是語。名教別體，教何是名？注中釋問意云：教是言教，語為教體，則異汝名別有其體。若以名為體，名是不相應行，非言教體，何得以名等為教體耶？論自答云「彼作是釋，要由於名，乃說為教。是故佛教體即是名。所以者何？詮義如實，故名佛教。」下與疏全同。此答意云：雖名聲教，若無名等詮其自性差別，獨用於聲豈成於教？故定用名等。疏家存略，但申正意足顯論旨。

The Commentary states, "In the Nyāyānusāra, the intention accords with name and the like": this establishes the second position. Therefore, that treatise in its third roll completes its explanation of the preceding verse, because the Nyāyānusāra as a whole comments on the six hundred verse lines of the Abhidharmakośa, but its tenets accord with the correct reasoning of the Mahāvibhāṣā, hence it is entitled Following Correct Principles (Nyāyānusāra). However, its direct explanation of the above verse is no different from the Kośa. In the Kośa there is no acceptance or rejection, whereas the Nyāyānusāra decisively assigns [the essence] to name; in our Commentary this is abridged. In that treatise there is an objection: "Vocal teaching is different from name, and teaching can admit of being voice. Since name and teaching have distinct essences, why would teaching be name?" The subcommentarial note explains the intention of the objection: "Teaching means verbal instruction; taking voice as the essence of teaching means having an essence separate and different from your 'name'. If one takes name as the essence, name is a conditioned factor disassociated [from mind] (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) and not the essence of verbal teaching; why, then, would one take name and the like as the essence of teaching?" The treatise itself replies: "They explain it thus: it is only by relying on name that it is called teaching. Therefore the essence of the Buddha's teaching is simply name. Why so? Because it expresses the meaning as it truly is; thus it is called the Buddha's teaching." What follows is completely identical with our Commentary. The meaning of this answer is: although it is called the teaching of voice, if there were no name and the like to express its own-nature and distinctive features, how could the mere use of sound constitute teaching? Therefore, name and the like must definitely be used. The commentator preserved an abridgement, merely expressing the correct intention, which suffices to clarify the treatise's purport.