大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.15

65.15

疏「故上答文」下，引上為證苦果總為名色，明知名色必共識俱也。然上諸文已顯體相，未知何獨此二相依？故《瑜伽》「問云：已說一切支，非更互為緣。何故建立名色與識互為緣耶？答：識於現法中用名色為緣故，名色復於後法中用識為緣故。所以者何？以於母腹中有相續時，說互為緣故。由識為緣，於母腹中諸精血等名色所攝受和合共成羯邏藍性，即此名色為緣，復令彼識於此得住。」釋曰：二義中，前標，即現果名色與因識為緣，令識得住即名色緣識義故。上行支亦以名色為體，名色總故。後義正辯入胎互為緣義，即今文所用。已知互為緣相，四蘊何獨皆稱為名？第一師云：在胎蒙昧，未辯苦樂，微有名而已。此依分位，六處之前、識支之後可爾。既二相依，從生至死皆名色攝，何得稱名？《俱舍論》云「名唯行攝。何四皆名？總有四釋四蘊稱名之義。一師云：隨所立名根境勢力於義轉變，故說為名。問：云何隨名勢力轉變？答：謂隨種種勢共立名，於彼彼義轉變詮表，即如牛馬色味等名。問：此復何緣標以名稱？答：於彼彼境轉變而緣。解云：已上論文此師意者，如今時名，隨於古昔名之勢力，得於義轉變詮表，或詮此境、或詮彼境，詮彼彼境名為轉變。名既如此，四蘊亦然。謂受等四蘊隨根境勢力，於境轉變而緣轉變如名，故標名稱。言轉變緣者，謂緣此緣彼，名轉變緣也。第二師云：又隨類名。此解意者，謂一切法不通二類，一者色類、二非色類。四蘊與名同非色類，以似名故，四蘊為名。第三師云：隨名顯故。此解意者，謂色法麁著不須名顯，如眼見也。四蘊微細要須名顯，必藉名故，故標名稱也。第四師云：有餘師說，四無色蘊，捨此身已轉趣餘生，轉變如名，故標名稱。解云：此師約捨身名轉變。初師據緣境名轉變。轉變雖同，二釋別也。」釋曰：上皆《俱舍論》，疏不斷得失。若取易知，第二三師理易分明，任情去取。

In the commentary, the passage from "Therefore, the preceding reply text..." onward cites the earlier text to prove that the fruition of suffering is subsumed under name-and-form, thereby clarifying that name-and-form must certainly occur together with consciousness. However, although the preceding passages have already revealed their essential characteristics, it is not yet known why only these two are mutually dependent. Hence, the Yogācārabhūmi asks: "It has already been stated that all factors are not mutually conditioned. Why, then, is it established that name-and-form and consciousness are mutually conditioned? Answer: Because consciousness in the present state uses name-and-form as a condition, and name-and-form in a subsequent state uses consciousness as a condition. Why is this? Because when there is continuity in the mother's womb, they are said to be mutually conditioned. With consciousness as a condition, the semen, blood, and other components in the mother's womb are appropriated by name-and-form and combine together to form the kalala state; and this very name-and-form, serving as a condition, further enables that consciousness to abide here." Explanation: Of these two meanings, the first sets forth the premise, which is that name-and-form as present fruit serves as a condition for consciousness as cause, enabling consciousness to abide; this is the meaning of "name-and-form conditions consciousness." The preceding link of karmic formations also takes name-and-form as its essence, because name-and-form is overarching. The second meaning directly explains the sense of their mutual conditioning upon entering the womb, which is what is used in the present text. Having understood the characteristics of their mutual conditioning, why are the four aggregates alone all called "name"? The first master says: In the womb, one is ignorant and dull, not yet distinguishing between suffering and pleasure, possessing only a subtle name. This is according to the stages, where before the six sense bases and after the link of consciousness, this may be so. But since the two are mutually dependent and from birth to death everything is subsumed under name-and-form, why should they be designated "name"? The Abhidharmakośa-śāstra states: "'Name' is subsumed only under karmic formations. Why are all four [aggregates] called 'name'? In all, there are four explanations of the meaning of the four aggregates being called 'name.' One master says: They are designated 'name' because they transform with respect to their referents in accordance with the force of the established names, sense faculties, and sense objects. Question: How do they transform according to the force of names? Answer: Names are established collectively in accordance with various forces to transform and express their respective referents, just as with names such as 'ox,' 'horse,' 'color,' and 'taste.' Question: For what reason are they designated by the appellation 'name'? Answer: Because they transform and cognize their respective objects. Explanation: The intention of this master in the above treatise text is this: Just as names today, following the force of names in antiquity, can transform and express referents, expressing either this object or that object—and expressing those various objects is called 'transforming'—since names are like this, so too are the four aggregates. That is, the four aggregates of feeling and the rest transform and cognize objects in accordance with the force of faculties and objects, transforming just like names; therefore, they are designated by the appellation 'name.' 'Transforming and cognizing' means cognizing this and cognizing that; this is called 'transforming cognition.' The second master says: Furthermore, they are named according to categories. The intention of this explanation is that all phenomena do not go beyond two categories: the first is the category of form, and the second is the category of non-form. The four aggregates and names both belong to the category of non-form; because they resemble names, the four aggregates are called 'name.' The third master says: Because they are manifested in dependence on names. The intention of this explanation is that form phenomena are coarse and manifest, not needing names to be revealed, like being seen by the eye; whereas the four aggregates are subtle and must be manifested by names, necessarily relying on names, and therefore are designated by the appellation 'name.' The fourth master says: Other masters state that the four immaterial aggregates, having abandoned this body, transform and proceed toward another rebirth, transforming just like names; therefore, they are designated by the appellation 'name.' Explanation: This master defines transformation in terms of abandoning the body. The first master bases transformation on cognizing objects. Although 'transformation' is the same [word], the two explanations differ." Explanation: The above is all from the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra, and the commentary does not judge their merits and defects. If one seeks easy comprehension, the reasons of the second and third masters are clearly discernible, so one may accept or reject them as one pleases.