Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Volume X: The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination

(10) Original Text:

Question: If it is said that ignorance has unwise mental application as its cause, why is it not mentioned first in the teaching of dependent arising?

Answer: Because it is merely a continuous cause, not a defiling cause. Why so? Unwise mental application arises only in the unwise. The teaching of dependent arising is expounded based on defiling causes. The intrinsic nature of ignorance is defiled, whereas the intrinsic nature of unwise mental application is undefiled. Therefore, unwise mental application cannot defile ignorance; rather, it is defiled by the force of ignorance. Furthermore, the arising of defiled karma is perfumed by the force of afflictions. The initial cause for the arising of karma is the first link of dependent arising. Hence, unwise mental application is not mentioned.

Explanation:

Question: If ignorance arises from unwise mental application, why does the teaching of dependent arising not first mention unwise mental application but directly states ignorance?

Answer: Unwise mental application is only a cause that perpetuates dependent arising; it is not a cause of defilement involving the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral). This is because only the foolish give rise to unwise mental application. The teaching of dependent arising is based on defiling causes. The intrinsic nature of ignorance is defiled, while that of unwise mental application is undefiled. Thus, unwise mental application cannot defile ignorance but is instead defiled by ignorance. Moreover, the arising of defiled karma is perfumed by the force of afflictions (i.e., the force of ignorance). The initial cause for the arising of defiled karma is the first link of dependent arising. Therefore, unwise mental application is not mentioned at the outset.

Original Text:

Question: Why is it not said that the self serves as a condition for the self?

Answer: Because that self, without other conditions, neither increases nor decreases its own defilement. Therefore, it is not said so.

Question: For what reason are meritorious and non-oscillating actions, which arise through the power of correct discrimination, still said to have ignorance as their condition?

Answer: Due to not comprehending the conventional cause of suffering, non-meritorious actions arise. Due to not comprehending the ultimate cause of suffering, meritorious and non-oscillating actions arise. Hence, it is also said that they have ignorance as their condition.

Question: As stated in the sūtras, all karmas have greed, hatred, and delusion as conditions. Why then is only delusion mentioned here as the condition?

Answer: Here, the conditions for meritorious, non-meritorious, and non-oscillating actions are generally discussed. Greed and hatred serve as conditions only for non-meritorious actions.

Explanation:

Question: Why is it not said that the self is a condition for the self?

Answer: If the self lacks other conditions, its defilement neither increases nor decreases. Thus, it is not said that the self is a condition for itself.

Question: What is the reason that meritorious actions and non-oscillating actions, which arise through the power of correct discrimination, are still said to have ignorance as their condition?

Answer: Because failing to comprehend the conventional cause of suffering (conditioned by greed and hatred) gives rise to non-meritorious actions, while failing to comprehend the ultimate cause of suffering (conditioned by ignorance) gives rise to meritorious and non-oscillating actions. Therefore, these three types of actions are all said to arise conditioned by ignorance.

Question: As the sūtras state, all karmas arise conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion. Why then is only delusion mentioned here as the condition?

Answer: This passage comprehensively addresses the conditions for meritorious, non-meritorious, and non-oscillating actions. Greed and hatred serve as conditions only for non-meritorious actions.