成唯識論了義燈 3.32

3.32

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.