俱舍論記 1.96

1.96

「或名言依至十八界攝」者，此有為法亦名言依。言謂語言，以聲為體。此言所依，即名及義，以言依名及義轉故名俱義者，謂名及與義俱行三世義，於三世中或名前義後、或名後義前、或名義同時。能詮所詮雖同或異，同墮世攝皆可說俱。此名與義望能說言，復同墮世有用親故，故是言依由此。無為是離世法，望能說言無用疎遠。雖亦是義，言亦能說，而非言依又解：名如前說。言俱義者，謂義與言俱同墮世故。又解：俱者通名及義，謂名俱、義俱。此名及義，與言俱也。若義若名可俱說故、同墮世故，名之為俱。名、義望言三世同異，如應說俱。故《婆沙》十五云「脇尊者言：有為諸法，與言可有俱時轉義，故立言依。無為不然，是故不說（已上論文）。」如是言依具攝一切有為諸法，若不爾者，而但執名為言依體，相違《品類足》論，彼說言依十八界攝。問：如《正理論》引《品類足論》云「由此善通《品類足論》，彼說言依五蘊所攝。」何故兩論引文不同？解云：此論、《正理》各引少分，《婆沙》十五具說。故彼論云「問：言依以何為自性？答：《品類足論》說：言依，十八界、十二處、五蘊所攝。」又解：此論為遮唯執言依名為體者故，偏引彼十八界文。《正理》為破言依亦通無為者執故，偏引五蘊文也。各引一邊，竝無違害。問：《婆沙》一說：名是言依，義是言展轉依；一說名義俱是言依。既有二師，此論言依為同何者？解云：或同前師、或同後師，皆無有妨。問：何故說名不說句、文？解云：言名影顯，或舉初顯後。

Regarding "Or they are called bases of speech ... subsumed under the eighteen elements": these conditioned dharmas are also called bases of speech (kathāvastu). "Speech" refers to spoken language, taking sound as its entity. The basis of this speech is names (nāman) and referents (artha), for speech operates dependent upon names and referents. As for "both having referents": it means that names and referents both operate in the three times. In the three times, either the name precedes and the referent follows, or the name follows and the referent precedes, or the name and referent are simultaneous. Although the expresser and the expressed may be the same or different, since both are equally subsumed under time, both can be said to be "together" (sa-). These names and referents, in relation to the speech that expresses them, also equally fall within time, possessing an active and close connection; therefore, they are the bases of speech. By this reason, the unconditioned is a dharma detached from time; in relation to the speech that expresses it, it lacks an active function and is distant. Although it is also a referent and speech can also express it, it is not a basis of speech. Another explanation: "Name" is as explained before. "Together with referents" means that the referent and speech both equally fall within time. Yet another explanation: "Both" applies to both names and referents, meaning "together with names, together with referents". These names and referents are together with speech. Because both referents and names can be spoken together and equally fall within time, they are called "together". Names and referents, in relation to speech across the three times, whether identical or distinct, are called "together" as appropriate. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 15, states: "The Venerable Pārśva said: Conditioned dharmas can have the meaning of operating simultaneously with speech, and therefore they are established as bases of speech. The unconditioned is not like this, and therefore it is not spoken of (thus far the treatise text)." In this way, the bases of speech completely subsume all conditioned dharmas. Were it not so, and one held that names alone constituted the entity of the bases of speech, this would contradict the Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra, which states that the bases of speech are subsumed under the eighteen elements. Question: As cited in the Nyāyānusāra, the Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra states: "By this it is well reconciled with the Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra, which says that the bases of speech are subsumed under the five aggregates." Why do the citations in the two treatises differ? The explanation is: This treatise and the Nyāyānusāra each cite a part, whereas the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 15, states it completely. Thus that treatise states: "Question: What is the intrinsic nature of the bases of speech? Answer: The Prakaraṇapāda-śāstra says: The bases of speech are subsumed under the eighteen elements, the twelve sense bases, and the five aggregates." Another explanation: Because this treatise aims to refute those who solely hold that names constitute the entity of the bases of speech, it specifically cites the passage on the eighteen elements. Because the Nyāyānusāra aims to refute the view that the bases of speech also extend to the unconditioned, it specifically cites the passage on the five aggregates. Each cites one side, and neither is in contradiction. Question: One view in the Mahāvibhāṣā states that names are the basis of speech, while referents are the indirect basis of speech; another view states that both names and referents are the bases of speech. Since there are two masters, which one does this treatise agree with? The explanation is: Whether it agrees with the former master or the latter master, there is no contradiction either way. Question: Why does it speak of names and not of phrases (pada) and phonemes (vyañjana)? The explanation is: Mentioning names implicitly indicates them, or it mentions the first to indicate the rest.