成唯識論述記 8.16

8.16

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.