成唯識論了義燈 2.70

2.70

論一剎那聲無詮表故者。薩婆多計，此表是實，今且問：汝聲生名等，為初一剎那聲生名等，為實詮表。為後一剎那，聲生名等，方實詮表。若初能，後無用，若後能。即量云：汝後一剎那聲除佛心外，應不能詮表；以是聲故；如初一剎那聲。若云相續，即如後破，由彼本計，除佛餘人一剎那聲，不是能詮。故《婆沙》第十五云：聲聞多剎那聲，能說一字。佛一剎那聲，能說一字。一字聲中仍未有名、句聚集，故不能詮。問：何故色中別立表色？聲中何故不立表聲？答：色法顯現故別立表，聲相難知故不別立。方、圓、長、短類亦可知。又解：色中形色有非表，於色之中別立表，聲中情名必是表，無非表故不別立。問：身表色依身，從彼所依名身表。語表亦依身，從依名身表？答：形色不離身，隨彼所依名身表，聲性發離質疎，故非身表。又解：身表在初，從依名身表，語表後說，恐濫非身表。

The treatise says: "Because single-moment sound lacks verbal expression." The Sarvāstivādins hold that this intimation is real. Now we ask: When your sound produces names and so forth, is it the sound of the initial single moment that produces names and so forth and is real verbal expression, or is it the sound of the subsequent single moment that produces names and so forth and is then real verbal expression? If the initial one can, the subsequent is useless; if the subsequent can, then the logical argument is: "Your sound of the subsequent single moment, excluding the Buddha's mind, should be unable to verbally express; because it is sound; like the sound of the initial single moment." If you say it is a continuum, then it is refuted as below, because according to their basic tenet, for persons other than the Buddha, sound of a single moment is not expressive. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā* [fascicle] fifteen says: "The sound of many moments of a śrāvaka can utter one syllable. The sound of a single moment of a Buddha can utter one syllable." Within the sound of a single syllable there is still no collection of names (nāma) or sentences (pada); therefore it cannot express. Question: Why is intimation-form separately established among colors, while intimation-sound is not separately established among sounds? Answer: Form dharmas are manifest, so intimation is separately established; the characteristics of sound are difficult to know, so it is not separately established. Square, round, long, and short categories can also be known. Another explanation: among colors, shape-color includes what is not intimation, so intimation is separately established among colors; among sounds, sentient vocalizations are necessarily intimation, and because there are none that are not intimation, it is not separately established. Question: Bodily intimation-form relies on the body, and from what it relies upon is called bodily intimation. Vocal intimation also relies on the body; should it be called bodily intimation from what it relies upon? Answer: Shape-color does not depart from the body, and following that on which it relies is called bodily intimation; the nature of sound, being emitted, departs from the substantial support and is distant, so it is not bodily intimation. Another explanation: bodily intimation is treated first, taking its name of bodily intimation from its support; vocal intimation is explained later, lest it be confused with what is not bodily intimation.