成唯識論述記 2.439

2.439

述曰：子段第三，例生非詮難。彼復救言：若一切聲皆有詮表，如絃管等者，即風鈴等聲應有詮用。我許內聲能生名等，故有詮表，非一切聲皆生名等、風鈴等聲，故無詮用。汝既以聲即能詮表，風鈴等聲應有詮用。

The Commentary states: The third sub-section, the objection making an analogy between production and non-signification. The opponent rescues again, saying: 'If all sounds have signification like strings and pipes, then the sounds of wind, bells, and so forth should have a signifying function. I accept that internal sound can produce words and so forth, and thus has signification, but not that all sounds produce words and so forth; the sounds of wind, bells, and so forth do not, and hence have no signifying function. Since you hold that sound itself can signify, the sounds of wind, bells, and so forth should also have a signifying function.'