成唯識論述記 2.156

2.156

述曰：此破一切有部，就彼宗除佛，餘一剎那聲不能詮故。又以理徵，設汝說佛一剎那聲亦不能實詮，如汝說極微大，於大乘者，以麁心故緣之不著，如我極細一剎那聲，汝宗不能有所詮表。故今總非，設就量云：語中汝除佛一剎那聲，應許有實表業；以是有情語聲攝故；如佛一念語。今既說除佛一切聲，一念無表明非實表，一念實聲不能詮故；又佛一念聲言實能詮表。但汝自言，餘人不了，故不能詮，此違自義。大乘之中，豈不許佛一念能詮？今諍是假，故宗法言有實表業，以簡過失，乃不違宗，若說假時，我亦許故。又言，汝佛一剎那聲，無實詮表；許聲性故；如所餘聲。此遮實詮，無違宗失。

The Commentary states: This refutes the Sarvāstivāda. According to their school, with the exception of the Buddha, the sound of a single moment for any other [being] cannot express [a meaning]. Moreover, interrogating by reasoning: even if you claim that the Buddha's sound of a single moment can also truly express, just as with your statement that an atom is large, for a follower of the Mahāyāna it cannot be grasped because of coarse minds—just like our extremely subtle sound of a single moment, your school cannot admit that it has any expressive signification. Therefore, this is now a general negation. If formulated as a syllogism: 'Among speech, that which you except—the sound of a single moment from the Buddha—should be admitted to be a real informative karma; because it is subsumed under the vocal sounds of sentient beings; like the single-moment speech of the Buddha.' Now, since you say that, excepting the Buddha, all sounds in a single moment have no informative expression, this clarifies that it is not real informative [karma], because a real sound of a single moment cannot express. Furthermore, you say that the Buddha's single-moment sound can truly explain and express; but that is merely your own claim: other persons cannot comprehend it, and therefore it cannot express. This contradicts your own doctrine. In the Mahāyāna, how could we not accept that the Buddha can express in a single moment? What is currently disputed is whether it is conventional. Thus, the thesis states 'there is real informative karma' in order to qualify the fallacy and not contradict the school's tenet; if speaking of the conventional, I too accept it. Moreover, one may state: 'Your Buddha's sound of a single moment lacks real expressive signification; because it is accepted to be of the nature of sound; like the remaining sounds.' This negates real expressive signification and is free from the fault of contradicting one's own tenets.