成唯識論掌中樞要 1.147

1.147

論云：名詮自相等。五十二云：為名、句所依應字，於一切所知、所詮事極略相是字。若中是名；若廣是句；若唯依文了達音韻，不能了達所有事義。若依止名，復能了達彼法自性；亦了音韻，不能了達所簡擇法深廣差別；若依通句，一切能了。《對法》亦同。《顯揚》十二云：有字非名，謂「一」字；有名非句，謂「一」字名。句必有名，名必有字，故成差別。若能顯名，顯何故名、句不名顯？以非本故，謂辨句自體詮，由文身顯，如飲食有味，由鹽方顯之。三界分別，名有二種：一、言說：此中者是以聲為體，唯二地繫，以即語聲故，發語之行，唯二地故。此隨聲繫，二識上地無，無漏即言有，語言初定有，何妨二定有。又論云：顯多由彼起，非說彼相應。五識既爾，語言應然。無漏上地言有語言，有漏者，依上地意發，亦無過。如引五識尋言說，定自在所生聲無色，三界起言，亦有何過？有漏語言必麁，云何上地起而無尋、伺。四、有漏、無漏即明三性，唯二性取境，名通三界。五、釋妨難：何故四蘊亦名為「名」，能取境故，如名相似，體、相非顯，以「名」顯故，名在此聚故，依名行境故。〈五十六〉言：順趣種種所緣境義。同第一解。依言說名分別，種種所緣境義故，同第四解，名為一名。問：何故二名已上方名為「身」，一名非身？此中三種總名為身等也，名及名身、多名身不出名身。又三中從二名為身故。問：如多名身名「身」，論云但有二種，何故名多？解云：身雖有二，名有其多，多名之身名「多名身」，非多身之名。或隔越名多，身亦有多故。何故不立頌等？如《疏》中解：總十四不相應。此雖說非得，諸論多說異生性。今依共有，且說十四種，以十門分別。一、有之所由；二、廢立；三、聚依處；四、現種依；五、有無漏；六、三性；七、見斷等；八、五位；九、界繫非；十、九地。然依《對法》有二十三，除不和合，雖有等言，不別解釋。《瑜伽》第三、五十六、《顯揚》第一、百法等，立二十四。《五蘊》及此論立十四。《顯揚》云：復有所餘，如是種類差別應知。各依一義以立，實可說多。一、說有所以；由起屬主言論等故；如《顯揚論》十八說。二、廢立，即前次文是。三辨聚法依處，依處有三：（一）、心；（二）、心所；（三）、色。以有別依，有總依，有一唯依心種，謂：命根。此攝正。三、唯依色立，謂：名、句、文身。且依此土，非餘佛土。四、依心、心所二法立，謂二無心定及果、異生性；六依三法，謂：得、眾同分、四相。通依三種立。〈六十五〉云：依名分位，立無想、滅盡定等故，唯依心、心所。四、辨現、種依：五唯依種，謂命根、二無心定及果、異生性；三唯依現，謂名、句、文；六通種、現，謂得等。五、有漏、無漏：一唯無漏，謂滅定；三唯有漏，謂無想定及果、異生性；十通二種，謂得、同分、命根、名、句、文、四相；佛等皆有故。六辨三性。今四唯一性。二唯善。謂無想、滅定。二唯無記。謂異生性、無想異熟唯無覆。四通二性。謂名、句、文、命根。四因唯無覆無記。果唯是善。六、通三性：謂得、同分、四相。七、辨見、斷等三：一唯見斷，謂異生性；一唯不斷，謂滅定；二通見、修斷，謂無想定及果。〈五十三〉說：唯見所斷，不生故。〈五十七〉說：善法修所斷，斷緣縛故。餘十種通見、修及不斷。八、五位：謂見、修等。二唯資糧，謂無想定及果。十住第六心方不退，即《優婆塞戒經》舍利弗六萬劫修道尚退故，已前尚得起。《瑜伽論》言：非聖所入。又十住第七名不退心，以後更不可起。一唯二位，謂異生性，在初二；一唯二位起，謂滅定，非初三，若迴心可爾；三唯四位，除見道，謂名、句、文；七通五位，謂得、同分、命根、四相，九界繫；二唯一界，謂無想定及果；三通二界及非界，謂得、名句、文；一通三界，謂異生性；一非三界，謂滅定；七通三界及非繫，謂得、同分、命根及四相。命根〈五十七〉說不通無漏，不說佛故。十、九地：三唯一地，謂二無心定及果；三通二地，謂名等三，或五地；八通九地，謂異生性及餘七。

The treatise says: names express their own-character, and so forth. Fascicle 52 states: phonemes (vyañjana) are that upon which names (nāma) and phrases (pada) rely; the most summarized character regarding all knowable and expressed entities is the phoneme. If intermediate, it is a name; if extensive, it is a phrase. If one relies solely on phonemes, one comprehends phonetics and rhyme, but cannot comprehend the referents of things. If one relies on names, one can further comprehend the intrinsic nature of those dharmas and also comprehend phonetics and rhyme, yet cannot comprehend the deep and vast differences of the examined dharmas. If one relies on complete phrases, one can comprehend everything. The Abhidharma is also the same. Xianyang fascicle 12 states: there are phonemes that are not names, namely a single letter/syllable; there are names that are not phrases, namely a single-word name. A phrase necessarily contains names, and a name necessarily contains phonemes; hence the distinction is established. If [phonemes] are what illuminate names, why are names and phrases not called illuminators? Because they are not primary; that is, the expression of the intrinsic nature of phrases is illuminated by the collection of phonemes (vyañjana-kāya), just as food has flavor, which is only illuminated through salt. Distinguishing the three realms, names are of two kinds: first, verbal discourse. Here, its substance is sound; it is bound only to two bhūmis, because it is speech-sound, and the action that produces speech occurs only in two bhūmis. This follows the binding of sound; the two consciousnesses do not exist in higher bhūmis. If it is uncorrupted (anāsrava), speech is said to exist; speech exists in the first dhyāna, so why prevent it from existing in the second dhyāna? Furthermore, the treatise states: "Illumination mostly arises from that, not that it is associated with that." Since the five consciousnesses are such, speech should also be so. As uncorrupted speech in higher bhūmis is said to exist, even if corrupted, speech produced from higher-bhūmi mental intent is also without fault. Just as the five consciousnesses are induced by vitarka to utter speech, and sounds produced through mastery in samādhi are formless, what fault is there if speech arises from the three realms? Corrupted speech is necessarily coarse; how could it arise in higher bhūmis without vitarka and vicāra? Fourth, corrupted and uncorrupted, which explains the three natures: only two natures grasp objects; names pervade the three realms. Fifth, resolving objections: why are the four aggregates also called 'nāma' (name)? Because they can grasp objects; they resemble names. Their substance and characteristics are not luminous, and are illuminated by 'names'; names reside in this aggregate; and they engage objects by relying on names. Fascicle 56 states: the meaning of according with and inclining towards various intentional objects. This accords with the first explanation. Because they discriminate the meanings of various intentional objects by relying on verbal names, this accords with the fourth explanation and is termed a single name. Question: Why is it that only from two names upwards is it called a 'kāya' (collection), while a single name is not a kāya? Here, the three kinds are collectively termed kāya, etc.; a name, a collection of names, and a collection of multiple names do not go beyond a collection of names. Moreover, among the three, from two names it is termed a kāya. Question: If a collection of multiple names is termed a 'kāya', and the treatise says there are only two kinds, why is it called 'multiple'? The explanation is: although the collections are two, the names are many; a collection of multiple names is called a 'collection of multiple names', not the names of multiple collections. Or, separated by intervals it is called multiple, as collections are also multiple. Why are verses (śloka) and the like not established? As explained in the Commentary: in total there are fourteen unassociated [formations]. Although this mentions non-attainment (aprāpti), many treatises speak of the nature of ordinary beings (pṛthagjanatva). Now, relying on what is shared, we temporarily speak of fourteen kinds, distinguishing them through ten gates: 1. the reason for their existence; 2. rejection and establishment; 3. the bases among aggregated dharmas; 4. reliance on actualities or seeds; 5. corrupted and uncorrupted; 6. the three natures; 7. abandoned by seeing, etc.; 8. the five states; 9. realm-bound or not; 10. the nine bhūmis. However, according to the Abhidharma there are twenty-three, excluding non-harmony; although there is the word 'etc.', it is not separately explained. Yogācāra fascicles 3 and 56, Xianyang fascicle 1, the Hundred Dharmas, etc., establish twenty-four. The Pañcaskandha and this treatise establish fourteen. Xianyang states: "Furthermore, there are others; such varieties of distinction should be known." Each is established based on a particular meaning; in reality, more can be stated. 1. Stating the reason for their existence: because of the arising of discourses concerning ownership, etc., as stated in Xianyang fascicle 18. 2. Rejection and establishment: this is the immediately preceding text. 3. Distinguishing the bases among aggregated dharmas: bases are of three kinds: (1) mind (citta), (2) mental factors (caitasika), (3) matter (rūpa). Because there are specific bases and general bases: one is established solely upon the seeds of mind, namely the life-faculty (jīvitendriya)—this subsumes the correct [view]. Three are established solely upon matter, namely the collections of names, phrases, and phonemes—temporarily based on this land, not on other Buddha-lands. Four are established upon the two dharmas of mind and mental factors, namely the two mindless absorptions and their results, and the nature of ordinary beings. Six are established upon all three dharmas, namely attainment, generic similarity (sabhāgatā), and the four characteristics—pervading all three kinds as their basis. Fascicle 65 states: because based on the states of names, the non-conceptual absorption, the absorption of cessation, etc., are established, they are based solely on mind and mental factors. 4. Distinguishing reliance on actualities and seeds: five rely solely on seeds, namely the life-faculty, the two mindless absorptions and their results, and the nature of ordinary beings; three rely solely on actualities, namely names, phrases, and phonemes; six pervade both seeds and actualities, namely attainment, etc. 5. Corrupted and uncorrupted: one is solely uncorrupted, namely the absorption of cessation; three are solely corrupted, namely the non-conceptual absorption and its result, and the nature of ordinary beings; ten pervade both kinds, namely attainment, generic similarity, the life-faculty, names, phrases, phonemes, and the four characteristics, because Buddhas and others all have them. 6. Distinguishing the three natures: here, four pertain to only one nature: two are solely wholesome, namely the non-conceptual absorption and the absorption of cessation; two are solely indeterminate, namely the nature of ordinary beings and the non-conceptual maturation, being solely non-obscured [indeterminate]; four pervade two natures, namely names, phrases, phonemes, and the life-faculty—the four causes are solely non-obscured indeterminate, while the results are solely wholesome; six pervade all three natures, namely attainment, generic similarity, and the four characteristics. 7. Distinguishing the three such as abandoned by seeing: one is abandoned solely by seeing, namely the nature of ordinary beings; one is solely unabandoned, namely the absorption of cessation; two are abandoned by both seeing and cultivation, namely the non-conceptual absorption and its result. Fascicle 53 says: abandoned solely by seeing, because they do not arise again. Fascicle 57 says: wholesome dharmas are abandoned by cultivation, because the bondage of conditions is severed. The remaining ten kinds pervade being abandoned by seeing, by cultivation, and being unabandoned. 8. The five states, namely seeing, cultivation, etc.: two pertain solely to the equipment [stage], namely the non-conceptual absorption and its result. Only at the sixth mind of the ten abodes does one not regress; as in the Upāsakaśīla-sūtra, Śāriputra, having cultivated the path for sixty thousand kalpas, still regressed, so before that it can still arise. The Yogācārabhūmi says: it is not entered by noble ones. Also, the seventh of the ten abodes is called the non-regressing mind, after which it can no longer arise. One pertains solely to two states, namely the nature of ordinary beings, which is in the first two; one arises solely in two states, namely the absorption of cessation, not in the first three, though if one changes one's mind it is possible; three pertain solely to four states, excluding the path of seeing, namely names, phrases, and phonemes; seven pervade all five states, namely attainment, generic similarity, the life-faculty, and the four characteristics. 9. Realm-bound: two are bound to only one realm, namely the non-conceptual absorption and its result; three pervade two realms and non-realm, namely attainment, and names, phrases, and phonemes; one pervades all three realms, namely the nature of ordinary beings; one is not of the three realms, namely the absorption of cessation; seven pervade the three realms and the unbound, namely attainment, generic similarity, the life-faculty, and the four characteristics. The life-faculty, according to fascicle 57, does not extend to the uncorrupted, because it does not speak of the Buddha. 10. The nine bhūmis: three pertain to only one bhūmi, namely the two mindless absorptions and their results; three pervade two bhūmis, namely the three such as names, or five bhūmis; eight pervade the nine bhūmis, namely the nature of ordinary beings and the remaining seven.