成唯識論了義燈 1.54

1.54

有釋云：西方三解，一云說諸字時，率爾現量，尋求前境，不緣名等，但得聲相，至決定心，具現三相，謂：聲、名、字。說行現六，說無現九，說常字時，現十二相。并句所詮，合十四法。經十六心，乃具聚集，謂四字中各有四心，謂耳、意，各四率爾，并意、尋、求、決定各四。一云尋、求，是非量故，亦緣名等故。於尋、求，亦得聚集。四尋求心，如其次第，得三、六、九及以十四。准前應知，經十二心，具足聚集。一云耳識，同緣意識，亦緣名等，此有二說：一云四率爾心，各唯得三，不緣過去，現量得故，不說聚集，至尋求心，方名教體。一云耳識，同時意識，容非現故，得緣過去，即八心中，具足聚集。今謂有餘，且初釋中，所經心多，聚集法少，何者意識上聚集？何故經耳識四率爾心耶？豈許意識不取本質，但緣耳識所變聲耶？既許意識、耳識同時自緣本質，但經意識十二心現，不應十六。若取耳率爾，應取耳緣聲，應成十八法。若以聲相似，但說十四法，亦應心相似，但說十二心。如實說者，除耳四率爾，但經意識十二心現，所集之法，四剎那聲、四个字、四个名、名所詮四，即四自性。又有一句、并句、所詮一、差別義，合十八法，聚集顯現，此據一相。若於一字等，現無量字等，法則不定。說五心中，諸識、三性至下第五，明其是非。又本所說於行、常二，方有決定，決定知諸，詮遷流行，無於彼常。

An explanation states: There are three interpretations in the West. One says: When the syllable [or phoneme] 'zhu' (all) is spoken, the preliminary [mind] is direct perception (pratyakṣa) and the inquiry [mind] faces the preceding objective sphere, not cognizing names and the like, but merely grasping the mark of sound; upon reaching the determinative mind, it fully manifests three marks, namely: sound, name (nāman), and phoneme (akṣara). When 'xing' (conditioned phenomena) is spoken, six manifest; when 'wu' (non-) is spoken, nine manifest; when the phoneme 'chang' (eternal) is spoken, twelve marks manifest. Together with the meaning expressed by the sentence (pada), they combine to make fourteen phenomena. Passing through sixteen minds, the assemblage is fully complete—that is, within each of the four phonemes there are four minds, namely four preliminary [minds] each of the ear and mental consciousnesses, plus four inquiry [minds] and four determinative [minds] of the mental consciousness. Another says: Because inquiry is not a means of valid cognition (apramāṇa) and also cognizes names and the like, the assemblage is obtained at inquiry as well. The four inquiry minds, in their respective order, obtain three, six, nine, and up to fourteen. By matching what precedes, one should know that, passing through twelve minds, the assemblage is fully complete. Another says: The mental consciousness cognizing along with the ear consciousness also cognizes names and the like; on this there are two explanations: One says: The four preliminary minds each obtain only three, and do not cognize the past because they are obtained by direct perception; this is not called assemblage, and only upon reaching the inquiry mind is it named the substance of the teaching. The other says: Because the simultaneous mental consciousness of the ear consciousness can be non-direct perception, it can cognize the past, and thus within eight minds the assemblage is fully complete. I now say that these have flaws. First, in the first explanation, many minds are passed through while few phenomena are assembled: What is assembled on the mental consciousness? Why does it pass through the four preliminary minds of the ear consciousness? Could it be admitted that the mental consciousness does not take the fundamental substance, but merely cognizes the sound transformed by the ear consciousness? Since it is admitted that the mental consciousness and the ear consciousness simultaneously cognize the fundamental substance on their own, it merely passes through the manifestation of twelve minds of the mental consciousness, and should not be sixteen. If one takes the preliminary [mind] of the ear, one should take the ear cognizing sound, which would result in eighteen phenomena. If, because the sounds are similar, one only speaks of fourteen phenomena, then because the minds are similar, one should likewise only speak of twelve minds. If spoken in accordance with reality: setting aside the four preliminary minds of the ear, it merely passes through the manifestation of twelve minds of the mental consciousness; the phenomena assembled are four instants of sound, four phonemes, four names, four objects expressed by the names—that is, four individual essences (svabhāva)—as well as one sentence, plus one meaning of distinction expressed by the sentence, making eighteen phenomena altogether that assemble and manifest; this is based on one general aspect. If infinite phonemes and the like manifest on one phoneme and so forth, the phenomena are not fixed. As for the [division of] consciousnesses and three natures in the five minds, their validity will be clarified below in the fifth [fascicle]. Furthermore, what was originally stated was that only at the two, 'conditioned phenomena' and 'eternal', is there determination, determinately knowing that 'all' expresses changing conditioned phenomena and is devoid of being eternal.