成唯識論演祕 2.566

2.566

詳曰：《疏》釋為正，有所憑故。故《瑜伽論》五十二云：若唯依文，俱可了達音韻而已，不能了達所有事義；若依止名，便能了達彼彼諸法自性、自相，亦了音韻，不能了達深廣差別；若依止句，當知一切皆能了達。《俱舍》第五云：「𧙃」、「阿」等字非能詮表。《順正理論》七十六云：文謂不能親目於義，但與名、句為詮義依。此等諸論言，文不能了達事，義能詮於法，云何名顯？若名能顯，云何不能了事義耶？故《疏》釋善。

Detailed evaluation: The Commentary's explanation is correct, as it has grounds. Therefore, the fifty-second fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'If one relies solely on phonemes, one can only comprehend vocal cadence, but cannot comprehend any factual meanings; if one relies on names, one can comprehend the intrinsic nature and intrinsic characteristics of those various phenomena, and also comprehend vocal cadence, but cannot comprehend profound and broad differentiation; if one relies on sentences, one should know that one can comprehend all.' The fifth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa says: 'Letters such as "gha" and "a" cannot designate.' Fascicle seventy-six of the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Phonemes mean being unable to directly designate meaning, but merely serving as the support of designative meaning for names and sentences.' These various treatises state that phonemes cannot comprehend facts, while meaning can designate phenomena; how could they be called 'illuminating'? If they were called illuminating, how could they be unable to comprehend facts and meanings? Therefore the Commentary's explanation is excellent.