成唯識論述記 8.16

8.16

述曰：若依彼文，性是三法，三法與語為依處，名語依處。語之依處，亦依士釋，若依此解，即顯此名、想、見因是語之依處，三法為因體故。問：何所以二論相違？答：二論意別，論雖無會，今意釋言。若《大論》等，以一切法為果，以說為因，約所詮是能詮之果，即能、所二詮解因果。《對法》無著以生起為因果，即依名、想、見起言說故，亦不相違，各據一義。故《對法》云：「隨說能作。」隨說者，語也，隨說之能作，名、想、見也。又，《大論》約貫通諸法詮境以說為因，《對法》唯依染分相生以說為果，不相違也。

The Commentary states: If one relies on that text, the nature consists of the three dharmas; the three dharmas serve as the basis for speech and are called the basis of speech. 'Basis of speech' is also a tatpuruṣa compound. If one relies on this interpretation, it shows that this cause consisting of name, ideation, and views is the basis of speech, because the three dharmas are the entity of the cause. Question: Why do the two treatises contradict each other? Answer: The intentions of the two treatises are different. Although the treatise does not reconcile them, the present interpretation explains: if according to the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, taking all dharmas as the fruit and speech as the cause, this is in terms of that which is expressed being the fruit of that which expresses—that is, explaining cause and fruit through the expressive and the expressed. Asanga in the Abhidharma-samuccaya takes coming-into-being as cause and fruit, namely relying on name, ideation, and views to give rise to speech; therefore they do not contradict each other, each being based on one perspective. Hence the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: 'The agent of nominal expression.' That which nominally expresses is speech; the agents of nominal expression are name, ideation, and views. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi is formulated in terms of pervading all dharmas to express objects, taking speech as the cause; the Abhidharma-samuccaya relies solely on defiled aspects generating one another, taking speech as the fruit. They do not contradict each other.