成唯識論了義燈 6.26

6.26

《論》：「一、語依處」等。西明二釋，初取本解彼論似義，第二取本正解彼文。據實本解此論正釋《瑜伽》等文。取所起語為語依處，即此依處為隨說因，故《瑜伽》第五明因依處云：謂依語依處施設隨說因。乃至云想為先故語轉，由語故隨見、聞、覺、知起諸言說。既云由語故起諸言說，不云由名、想、見故起諸言說。明知不取名、相、見三。為語依處及隨說因，《顯揚》十八亦同《瑜伽》第五，雖《瑜伽》、《顯揚》解語因。云名為先故想，想為先故說，是謂彼諸法隨說因似取名、想、語三為隨說因，准解因依處。既但云由語故起諸言說，不云由名、想、語起諸言說。亦不云由語等故起諸言說，諸家何煩分為兩釋，故唯《雜集》准論有殊。

The treatise says: "First, the base of speech," etc. Master Ximing gives two explanations: the first takes the original text to explain that treatise's apparent meaning; the second takes the original text to correctly explain that text. In fact, the original explanation of this treatise correctly explains the passages of the Yogācārabhūmi and others. Taking the generated speech as the base of speech, this very base is the conventional cause. Therefore, Yogācārabhūmi fascicle five, explaining the bases of causes, states: "That is, depending on the base of speech, the conventional cause is posited," up to saying: "Because ideation precedes, speech turns; because of speech, following what is seen, heard, sensed, and known, verbal expressions arise." Since it says that "because of speech, verbal expressions arise," and does not say that "because of name, ideation, and view, verbal expressions arise," one clearly knows it does not take the three—name, mark, and view—as the base of speech and the conventional cause. The Xianyang fascicle eighteen also agrees with Yogācārabhūmi fascicle five. Although Yogācārabhūmi and Xianyang explain the cause of speech by stating: "Because name precedes, there is ideation; because ideation precedes, there is speech; this is called the conventional cause of those phenomena," which seemingly takes the three—name, ideation, and speech—as the conventional cause; yet in accordance with the explanation of the base of the cause, since it only says "because of speech, verbal expressions arise," and does not say "because of name, ideation, and speech, verbal expressions arise," nor does it say "because of speech, etc., verbal expressions arise," why should the various masters trouble themselves to divide it into two explanations? Thus, only the Samuccaya, following [other] treatises, differs.