俱舍論記 13.20

13.20

「頌曰至語表許言聲」者，頌中十句，前九句明身表，後一句明語表。就前九句中，初一句論主述說一切有部形為身表；次五句論主破正量部動為身表，以此動色經部及說一切有部俱不許有，故先破之；次三句論主破說一切有部形為身表。若依經部宗，身、語二表是色及聲多體聚集相續分位以說為表。一無表能，一物不能獨表示故。以說善、惡一念無能益損，要由相續生故、積集成故，假而非實。若依正量部，有為法中許有表長時非剎那滅者，故身、語表皆據極微相續運轉能有表示，即由動故能表益損。若依說一切有部，身、語二表有別極微，是實有性。論主此中意朋經部，故破彼二宗。語表業中准身表說，故不再論。

[On the passage] "The verse says: […] Vocal vijñapti is accepted as the sound of speech": Among the ten lines of the verse, the first nine lines explain bodily vijñapti, and the last line explains vocal vijñapti. Within the first nine lines: in the first line the author of the treatise states the Sarvāstivāda view that shape (saṃsthāna) is bodily vijñapti; in the next five lines the author of the treatise refutes the Saṃmatīya view that motion is bodily vijñapti—since this moving form is accepted neither by the Sautrāntika nor by the Sarvāstivāda, it is refuted first; in the next three lines the author of the treatise refutes the Sarvāstivāda view that shape is bodily vijñapti. If one relies on the Sautrāntika school, the two vijñaptis of body and speech are designated as vijñapti as continuum-phases (saṃtati-avasthā) formed by the aggregation of multiple entities of form and sound. A single [atom] lacks the capacity to manifest, for a single entity cannot manifest alone. Because it is said that wholesome and unwholesome in a single moment have no capacity to benefit or harm, they must arise through a continuum and be brought about by aggregation, being nominal (prajñapti) and not real. If one relies on the Saṃmatīya school, among conditioned phenomena they admit that there is vijñapti that endures for a long time and is not momentary (kṣaṇika); therefore bodily and vocal vijñaptis both consist in the continuous locomotion of subtle atoms capable of manifestation, so that precisely through motion they can manifest benefit or harm. If one relies on the Sarvāstivāda, the two vijñaptis of body and speech have distinct subtle atoms and are real entities (dravyasat). Here the author of the treatise intends to side with the Sautrāntika, and therefore refutes those two schools. The karma of vocal vijñapti is to be explained by analogy with bodily vijñapti, and so is not discussed again.