[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 2.431 # 成唯識論述記 2.431 成唯識論述記 2.431 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.431](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2.431) 述曰：色等法上形量屈曲，即是長、短、方、圓、表等，或即書上文字，亦是色之屈曲。然色之屈曲，不異於色，即色處攝。聲上屈曲，應不異聲，聲處所收。量云：聲之屈曲應非離所依別有實體，法處所收；色蘊上屈曲故，或色、聲二色之上隨一屈曲故；如色處長等。若不言法處所收，同喻便有所立不成。又汝色上屈曲應別有體，法處所收；色蘊上屈曲故；如聲上屈曲等，此中外例亦復如是。汝大乘師聲上屈曲，雖體非實，仍法處收；色上屈曲，應體非實，法處所攝。若以聲能顯義，有教性故，意識所得故，法處收，假立名等。我宗亦爾，彼此異因不可得故。此義不然，不唯依聲立名等故，亦依光明等而假立故，既依多法，唯意所緣，故法處收。不可難言戒體，但依思應別處攝，現同處故。自下第四、例聲生語詮難。 > The Commentary states: The modulations of shape and size upon phenomena such as color-form are long, short, square, round, overt action (vijñapti), and so forth; or they are the written letters in books, which are also modulations of color-form. Yet the modulations of color-form are not distinct from color-form and are subsumed directly under the visual form sphere (rūpa-āyatana). The modulations upon sound should likewise not be distinct from sound, being subsumed under the sound sphere (śabda-āyatana). The formal argument is: 'The modulations of sound should not possess a distinct real entity apart from their basis, being subsumed under the mental-object sphere (dharma-āyatana); because they are modulations upon the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha), or because they are modulations upon either one of the two forms, color-form or sound; just like the length and so forth of the color-form sphere.' If one does not say 'subsumed under the mental-object sphere', the corroborating example would suffer from lack of the probandum (sādhya-vikala). Furthermore: 'Your modulations upon color-form should have distinct entities subsumed under the mental-object sphere; because they are modulations upon the form aggregate; like the modulations upon sound,' and the opponent's counter-analogy is also like this. You Mahāyāna master hold that although modulations upon sound are not real in essence, they are still subsumed under the mental-object sphere; so modulations upon color-form should likewise not be real in essence, yet be subsumed under the mental-object sphere. If you argue that because sound can reveal meaning, possesses the nature of teaching, and is cognised by mental consciousness, it is subsumed under the mental-object sphere and words and so forth are conventionally posited on it, our school says the same, as no differing reason can be found between them. This reasoning is invalid: it is not only based on sound that words and so forth are posited; they are also conventionally posited on the basis of light rays and so forth. Since they are based on multiple phenomena and are cognised solely by the intellect, they are subsumed under the mental-object sphere. One cannot object that since the essence of morality (śīla) is based solely on volition (cetanā), it should be subsumed under a different sphere, for it is currently within the same sphere. Below is the fourth part, the objection comparing the production of words by sound to signification by speech. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.430](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2.430) - [Next: 2.432](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2.432) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.2.431) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.33) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2.431](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.2.431) · Pramāṇa