瑜伽論記 9.154

9.154

第三復次中，景云：別有薩婆多等諸小乘師復救，義云：我所說隨諸言說有法性者，先有色體隨言說顯，故說言有，非辨法體，故今牒破。又若諸色至攝取色者，此牒執也，是即離色至而實不起者，前未立色名先有色體，是即離色字於彼色法應起色覺，若未立色名已生色覺，何勞立名以顯於色，若未立色名未生色覺，明知名前未有色體，故云而實不起。

In the third argument, Jing says: Other Hīnayāna masters such as the Sarvāstivādins offer yet another rescue, meaning: "When I say that the nature of an entity exists in accordance with speech, an entity of matter exists beforehand and is made manifest in accordance with speech; thus I say it exists, but I am not identifying [speech as] the entity of the phenomenon." Therefore, the text now cites and refutes this. From "Furthermore, if matter [...] to apprehending matter," this cites their attachment. From "it would follow that apart from matter [...] yet in reality it does not arise," prior to the establishment of the name "matter," the entity of matter already existed; it would follow that apart from the word "matter," the awareness of matter ought to arise with respect to that phenomenon of matter. If the awareness of matter already arose prior to establishing the name "matter," why bother establishing a name to manifest matter? If prior to establishing the name "matter," the awareness of matter has not arisen, one clearly knows that prior to the name, there was no entity of matter; hence it says, "yet in reality it does not arise."