俱舍論疏 1.118

1.118

論「若不爾者至十八界攝」，若不如此釋具攝一切有為，如餘師義言依唯名，即不通十八界，違論所說通十八界。《正理論》云「言依謂名，俱義即具攝五蘊。如契經說：言依有三，無四無五。由此善通《品類足論》，彼說言依五蘊所攝。」問：此論、《正理》同引《品類足論》，因何此論言十八界，《正理》言五蘊耶？答：《正理》云具攝五蘊，此論云具攝一切有為諸法，言雖少異，義無別也。又破餘師言依唯名，《品類足論》云「言依五蘊、十二處、十八界攝。」正理引初、此論引後，義皆無失，然皆證通攝有為。《婆沙》有二說：一云名是言依，義是言展轉依；一云名、義俱是言依。此論同於後說，言有於名方能詮義，欲言之時雙依二故。問：何故但說名俱，不云句等？答：起言之時，或唯召法，即唯有名；若兼差別；即兼名、句。名是通故，所以言名。問：若爾，文最是通，因何不說？答：文是所依，然不能詮自性、差別，故不說也。

The treatise says, "If it were not so… subsumed by the eighteen dhātus". If one does not explain it this way as completely subsuming all conditioned phenomena—as in other masters' view where the base of speech is only the name—then it would not extend to the eighteen dhātus, contradicting the treatise's statement that it extends to the eighteen dhātus. The Nyāyānusāra states: "The base of speech refers to names; the accompanied meaning completely subsumes the five skandhas. As the sūtra states: Bases of speech are three; there is no fourth and no fifth. Through this, the Prakaraṇapāda is well explained, for it states that bases of speech are subsumed by the five skandhas." Question: Both this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra cite the Prakaraṇapāda; why does this treatise say the eighteen dhātus, whereas the Nyāyānusāra says the five skandhas? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra says it completely subsumes the five skandhas, while this treatise says it completely subsumes all conditioned phenomena; though the phrasing differs slightly, the meaning is identical. Furthermore, in refuting other masters who claim the base of speech is only the name, the Prakaraṇapāda states: "Bases of speech are subsumed by the five skandhas, the twelve āyatanas, and the eighteen dhātus." The Nyāyānusāra cites the beginning, while this treatise cites the end; neither loses the meaning, and both prove that it universally subsumes the conditioned. The Vibhāṣā has two explanations: one says that the name is the base of speech, and the meaning is speech's indirect base; another says that both name and meaning are bases of speech. This treatise agrees with the latter explanation: speech relies on names to express meaning, and at the time of intending to speak, it relies jointly on both. Question: Why speak only of "accompanied by names" and not mention phrases and so on? Answer: When speech arises, if it merely summons a phenomenon, there is only a name; if it includes distinctions, it includes both name and phrase. Because names are universal, it speaks of names. Question: If so, letters (phonemes) are the most universal; why not mention them? Answer: Letters are that upon which [words] rely, but they cannot express intrinsic nature or distinctions; therefore, they are not mentioned.