[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 3.32 # 成唯識論了義燈 3.32 成唯識論了義燈 3.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.32) 《論》謂：聲能生等者，破他可知。問：大乘自許假名等詮，言何用名等，豈不自違？答：外許名等，定異於聲。由聲生顯，此聲必有音韻屈曲，不爾不生。大乘能詮，雖在名等依屈曲聲，非定一異，對破定異，攝假從實，云聲能詮，何用名等？故無有過。 > When the Treatise says that sound can produce and so forth, it refutes the other position, which is readily understood. Question: Mahāyāna itself accepts that nominal names and so forth express; in saying "what use is name and so forth?", is that not self-contradictory? Answer: The opponent accepts that name and so forth are definitively distinct from sound. Produced and manifested by sound, this sound must have vocal modulation; otherwise, it would not arise. Although the Mahāyāna expressor resides in name and so forth relying on modulated sound, they are not definitively identical or distinct. In counter-refuting their definitive distinctness, subsuming the nominal under the real, it says that sound can express, so what use are name and so forth? Therefore, there is no fault. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.31) - [Next: 3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.33) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.3.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.32) · Pramāṇa