成唯識論述記 1.587

1.587

述曰：破第二師也。此言「餘者」有二義：一、計餘，是前明論者計之餘也；二、聲餘，前計少分，今計全故。又前破明論聲計，今破彼聲外之常聲，故云：餘聲亦應非常聲體；待眾緣故；如瓶盆等。然彼所計聲性與聲別，聲性即是所發音響聲之體，故今總言非常聲體。若破所發音聲，言非常聲；若破聲性，言非常聲體，聲及聲性合名聲體。若但言非常聲，他以聲性例所發音為不定過。若言非聲，即違自宗，故但總言非常聲體。又簡真如雖待緣顯，非常聲體故。因云「待眾緣」者，若言待緣顯，即聲顯成自生俱不成。若言待緣生，即自生成顯不成。為對二宗，自無有過，故但總言「待眾緣」故。若言待眾緣生顯故，文繁無用，故不具述。

The Commentary states: This refutes the second master. The word 'other' has two meanings: first, the other doctrine, being the remainder beyond the previous doctrine of the treatises of enlightenment; second, the other sounds, because the previous grasped a part, whereas this one grasps the whole. Furthermore, the previous refuted the grasp of the sound of the treatises of enlightenment, while this one refutes the eternal sound outside that sound. Therefore it says: 'Other sounds should also not be eternal sound-substances; because they depend on multiple conditions; like jars, basins, and so forth.' However, in their doctrine, the essence of sound (śabdatva) and sound are distinct; the essence of sound is the substance of the sound of the emitted tone, so now it states generally 'not eternal sound-substances'. If refuting the emitted tone, one says 'not eternal sounds'; if refuting the essence of sound, one says 'not eternal sound-substances'. Sound and the essence of sound are collectively named 'sound-substance'. If one merely said 'not eternal sounds', the other would cite the essence of sound by analogy with the emitted tone, resulting in the fault of being inconclusive. If one said 'not sounds', that would contradict one's own doctrine, so it merely states generally 'not eternal sound-substances'. Furthermore, it excludes tathatā, because although it depends on conditions to be manifested, it is not an eternal sound-substance. As for the reason stating 'because they depend on multiple conditions': if one said 'depend on conditions to be manifested', then the manifestation of sound would be proven while the self-production would be unproven; if one said 'depend on conditions to be produced', then self-production would be proven while manifestation would be unproven. In order to confront both schools without incurring fault oneself, it merely states generally 'because they depend on multiple conditions'. If it had said 'because they depend on multiple conditions to be produced or manifested', the text would be cumbersome and useless, hence it is not fully detailed.