俱舍論記 5.210

5.210

「應知此中至香味等想」者，此別釋名。即以想釋名。梵云那（去聲）摩，唐言名，是隨義、歸義、赴義、召義。謂隨音聲歸赴於境、呼召色等，名能詮義。然非義合，聲非能詮義亦非義合。故《入阿毘達摩》第二云「非即語音親能詮義，勿說火時便燒於口。要依語故火等名生，由火等名詮火等義。詮者謂能於所顯義生他覺慧，非與義合（已上論文）。」梵云僧若（日何反），唐言想，是能取像專執之義，或是共立契約之義。言作想者，作謂造作，由心所中想取像已，建立造作此名。是想所作，名為作想。言名是想，從因為稱。又解：謂緣於名能起於想，能作想故，故名作想。又解：作之言發，由天人等名發天人等想，故名作想。言名是想，從果為名。又解：此言想者，即是名之別名，以名皆是立能詮之要契，即由此想能有詮表，故名為作。即作是想，名為作想。

"Herein it should be known [...] concepts of fragrance, taste, and so forth": This specifically explains 'name' (nāma); that is, explaining name by concept (saṃjñā). In Sanskrit it is called nāma; in the language of the Tang it is called míng ('name'). It has the senses of following, converging, approaching, and summoning. That is, following sound, it converges and approaches the object, and summons form and so forth; a name can express meaning. However, it is not that there is an ontological contact with the object, nor can sound directly express meaning, nor does it have ontological contact with the object. Therefore, fascicle two of the Abhidharmāvatāra says: 'It is not that the sound of speech directly expresses meaning, lest when speaking of fire one's mouth should be burned. It must rely on speech so that names such as fire arise, and by means of names such as fire the meaning of fire and so forth is expressed.