[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) › 8.6 # 成唯識論述記 8.6 成唯識論述記 8.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.6) 然《大論》三十八，但有三種十因，及五果體無依處攝；《對法》唯有十因之名，亦非周悉；《顯揚》十八初有十因，後辨因依處；《大論》第五辨因依處，不別明因；三十八及《顯揚》云：「隨一切法、名為先，故想；想為先，故說，是彼諸法隨說因。」彼論文勢似取詮一切法之名、想、語三法為因體，然今此文正解彼意。但取法及名、想三法所起語是此因體，所以者何？但言依語依處立此因故，唯語為自性，不爾，即應言依名、想、說依處立此因也。此中即以諸法為果，以名、想與說為所依因，言說正是詮諸法因也。言說是語性，語性總言，即通三性語業為體，唯佛是善，餘皆無記。然有表示故，語可言善、惡，然實二性，名雖即語之差別，無表示故，不如其語，語是業性，以除佛以外名皆無記。或可大乘離聲無體，故名即通三性，但以三相及得例難同所依故，不可言相是共有因不同於名，大乘共有因義皆通故。 > However, fascicle thirty-eight of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra only has the three kinds of ten causes, and the entity of the five fruits is not subsumed under the bases; the Abhidharma-samuccaya only has the names of the ten causes and is also not comprehensive; fascicle eighteen of the Prakaraṇāryavācā first has the ten causes and later distinguishes the bases of causes; fascicle five of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra distinguishes the bases of causes without separately explaining the causes. Fascicle thirty-eight \[of the Yogācārabhūmi\] and the Prakaraṇāryavācā state: 'Conforming to all dharmas, names come first, hence ideation; ideation comes first, hence speech—this is the cause of nominal expression (anuvyavahāra-hetu) for those dharmas.' The drift of the treatise text there seems to take the three dharmas of name, ideation, and speech, which express all dharmas, as the entity of the cause. However, the present text correctly explains their intention: it only takes speech generated by dharmas and the three dharmas of name and ideation as the entity of this cause. Why is this? Because it only says that this cause is established based on the basis of speech, so speech alone is the intrinsic nature. Were it not so, it should say that this cause is established based on the basis of name, ideation, and expression. Here, all dharmas are taken as the fruit, and name and ideation together with speech are the supporting causes; speech is precisely the cause that expresses all dharmas. Speech is of the nature of voice/words. Speaking generally of the nature of speech, it has vocal karma across the three natures as its substance: only the Buddha's is wholesome, while the rest are all indeterminate. However, because it possesses indicative expression, speech can be spoken of as wholesome or unwholesome, yet in reality it has two natures. Although names are distinctions of speech, because they lack indicative expression, they are not like speech. Speech is of the nature of karma, and except for the Buddha, all names are indeterminate. Or it may be that in the Mahāyāna, apart from sound there is no separate entity, so names indeed pervade the three natures; it is only that by using the three characteristics and acquisition as analogies to object that they share the same basis, one cannot say that characteristics are coexistent causes unlike names, since in Mahāyāna the meaning of coexistent causes is universally pervasive. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.5) - [Next: 8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.7) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.8.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.6) · Pramāṇa