成唯識論掌中樞要 1.146

1.146

問：字是名、句依而不詮表，大乘離聲無體，何者為字？此方但有一字名，其字難解；彼方多分無一字名，如言「殺」字有三字合，謂：沙、吒、多三合，方成一「殺」。「𠍜」字如云音鄔，字無詮表故。故雖假立，亦有字轉名、句、文身。文身異名身，文者彰義，彰彼二故；又名顯，此為所依，顯彼義故；又名字無異轉，如𧙃、噎、等。如《疏》中釋別名等。「名身」者名謂呼召，名因稱名；「句」者梵云「鉢陀」，如《疏》中解，應云「跡」。一、名：謂名身等，皆依士釋。「身」是二總，「名」是一別，別名之身，名為「名身」。二名積集名為「身」，故多名之身亦復如是，以一名非身故，非持業釋。然此三種不單言「名」，復不言多名「身」，唯就名身等者，言中攝略、廣故。單言名身，且以略言，多即廣故。二、辨其差別：

Question: Phonemes are the support of names and phrases but do not express meaning; in the Mahāyāna, having no substance apart from sound, what constitutes a phoneme? In this land [China], there are single-character words, so a character is difficult to explain [as a phoneme]; in that land [India], for the most part there are no single-character words—as when speaking of the word 'kill' (śastra), it is a combination of three syllables, namely śa, ṭa, and ta combined together, which only then form one 'śastra'. A syllable such as the sound u is a phoneme without expressive meaning. Therefore, although nominally established, there are also phonemes that turn into nāma-kāya, pada-kāya, and vyañjana-kāya. A collection of phonemes (vyañjana-kāya) is distinct from a collection of names (nāma-kāya): vyañjana means 'manifesting', because it manifests the other two; it is also called 'illuminating', because acting as their support, it illuminates their meaning; moreover, it means that the syllable undergoes no different inflection, like a, i, and so forth, as explained in the Commentary regarding specific names and so forth. As for 'collection of names' (nāma-kāya), 'name' (nāma) means calling or addressing, called a name on account of designation. As for 'phrase' (pada), in Sanskrit it is pada; as explained in the Commentary, it should be called 'footstep'. First, name: this refers to nāma-kāya and so forth, which are all tatpuruṣa compounds. 'Collection' (kāya) is the general term for two [or more], while 'name' (nāma) is one specific [entity]; a collection of specific names is called a 'collection of names' (nāma-kāya). An accumulation of two names is called a 'collection' (kāya); hence, an accumulation of many names is also like this, because a single name is not a collection; thus it is not a karmadhāraya compound. However, as for these three, why not simply say 'name', nor say 'collection' of many names, but speak only of nāma-kāya and the like? It is because the expression encompasses both brevity and breadth. To speak simply of a pair of names is for the moment to speak concisely, while 'many' means breadth. Second, explaining their distinctions: