俱舍論疏 5.258

5.258

論「又文由語至皆不應理」，若生若顯二關破斥，准語於名生顯之過也。《正理論》云「此難違害自所稟宗。彼說去來皆無自體，聲前後念不可頓生，如何成文、成名、成句？若前前念傳傳相資，最後剎那成文、名、句，但聞最後應了義成。又無相資，去、來無故，既恒一念如何相資？既無相資前後相似，後如初念應不能詮，聞後如初應不了義。故彼所執前後相資聲即能詮，理不成立。我宗三世皆有非無，故後待前能生名等。雖最後念名等方生，而但聞彼不能了義。由不具聞，如先共立名等契約能發聲故。然聞一聲亦有了者，由串習故。依此比餘，故經主言破彼非此。」

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, phonemes produced by speech [...] are all unreasonable": Whether generated or manifested, both horns of the dilemma are refuted, analogously to the fault of speech producing or manifesting names. The Nyāyānusāra says: "This objection contradicts their own adopted school. They hold that the past and future are without substantial reality, and the earlier and later moments of sound cannot arise simultaneously; how then could they form phonemes, names, and phrases? If earlier moments successively assist each other so that in the final moment phonemes, names, and phrases are formed, then merely hearing the final moment one should successfully understand the meaning. Furthermore, there is no mutual assistance, because the past and future do not exist; since there is constantly only one moment, how could there be mutual assistance? Since there is no mutual assistance, and earlier and later are similar, the later would be like the first moment and unable to express, and hearing the later would be like hearing the first and unable to yield understanding of the meaning. Therefore, their view that sounds mutually assisting in sequence are able to express is logically untenable. In our school, the three times all exist and are not non-existent; hence the later, relying on the earlier, can generate names and so forth. Although the names and so forth are generated only in the final moment, merely hearing that [final sound] does not allow one to understand the meaning, because one has not heard it in its entirety, just as previously mutually agreed conventions on names, etc., can elicit speech. However, when someone hears a single sound and understands, it is due to repeated habituation. Drawing an inference based on this to the rest, the author of the Śāstra was refuting them, not this."