大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 12.26

12.26

The Commentary states, "Therefore Nyāyānusāra 14 refutes that master, saying: You should not establish that the collection of names, phrases, and phonemes has voice itself as its essence": this is cited to confirm the Sautrāntika position mentioned above that establishes voice as the essence. The text of the treatise is extensive; here I will cite it briefly to make its source known. The treatise says: "Here, the master of the treatise [Vasubandhu] states: 'Do not these three have voice as their nature, thereby taking sound as their essence? Since they are subsumed under the own-nature of form, how can one speak of them as conditioned factors disassociated from mind?' This reprimand is unreasonable. Why so? Because from both teaching and reasoning we know they exist separately. 'Teaching' refers to the sūtra speaking of 'collections of voice' and 'collections of phonemes'; if phonemes were identical to voice, why speak of them separately? Furthermore, it says that one should uphold the phonemes and phrases of the true Dharma. It also says to rely on the meaning and not on the letter." In the explanation below, scriptural citations are extensively adduced, and the general meaning is the same. Therefore the treatise concludes: "From such scriptural proofs, we know that the collections of names, phrases, and phonemes that express the various meanings exist separately. Just as vocal sound is real and not nominal, by reasoning this is directly perceived. Sometimes one apprehends the sound but does not apprehend the letter; sometimes one apprehends the letter but does not apprehend the sound; thus we know their essences are distinct. 'Sometimes apprehending the sound but not the letter' means that although one hears the sound, one does not understand the meaning. We see in daily life that someone vaguely hears another's words and then asks again, 'What did you say?' This hearing of the vocal sound without understanding the meaning is entirely because they have not grasped the phonemes produced. How could one cling to phonemes not being different from sound? 'Sometimes apprehending the letter but not the sound' means that without hearing the sound, one understands the meaning. We see in daily life that someone does not hear another's words, yet observing the movement of the lips and so on, knows what they said. This understanding of the meaning without hearing the sound is entirely because they have already grasped the phonemes produced. By this logical proof, phonemes must be different from sound. (The text below explains this extensively, and the general meaning is the same.)" Below, the treatise further states: "Following thought, speech is produced; depending on speech, phonemes are produced; phonemes again produce names; and names only then reveal meaning. Relying on such an interrelated sequence of reasoning, it is said that speech produces names, and names are capable of revealing meaning. When established in this way, the reasoning is inevitable." Further below, it says: "Or just as a tree and the like are composed of the great elements, and it is not that, conditioned by this, a shadow is not separately produced; the shadow is produced from what is nominal, yet its essence is not nominal. Likewise, these various phonemes should also aggregate and separately produce names and phrases. And although those names and phrases are produced from what is nominal, their essence is not nominal. This is well spoken, because the reasoning is thoroughly established." Further below, it concludes: "Therefore, we know that apart from sound, there separately exist names and the like." And further below, it states: "Therefore, one should not establish that the collection of names, phrases, and phonemes has voice itself as its essence. Hence, according to what I have said, apart from sound there exist these three—names and the like—which are capable of revealing meaning and principle." Now, our Commentary merely cites this concluding passage to clarify the correct meaning.