瑜伽論記 19.515

19.515

自下別破。如是乃至為於無義轉耶者，此兩問定。於有義轉，且不應理，如前觀五事中已辨者，前於相名五事已破外人，若名定於有義中轉，如世一法有眾多名。若名義相至有決定者名多義，即有一法有多體過。言若於無義轉者至其理便至者，若名於彼無義處轉，汝不應云別別諸名各別行解隨義而轉。言若於無相義轉乃至即是執著者，此名若於無義而轉，是即言教有所宣說但是增益。

From here below is the specific refutation. In "Thus... or does it function with respect to that which is without a referent?", these two questions settle [the options]. Functioning with respect to that which has a referent is first unreasonable; as previously explained in examining the five dharmas, it was already refuted against the opponent earlier regarding the five dharmas of mark and name: if a name definitively functioned with respect to that which has a referent, just as in the world one dharma has many names, if name and referent definitely corresponded, there being many names for a referent would entail the fault of one dharma having multiple substances. When it says, "If it functions with respect to that which is without a referent... then that reasoning follows," if a name functions with respect to that place without a referent, you should not say that distinct names each have distinct understandings functioning in accordance with the referent. When it says, "If it functions with respect to a referent devoid of marks... then it is grasping," if this name functions with respect to that which is without a referent, then what is expounded by verbal teaching is merely an imputation.