Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Volume Ten (The Twelve Links of Dependent Origination)

（三十二）Original text: 问。如世尊说缘起甚深。此甚深义。云何应知。答。由十种相。应知缘起甚深义。谓依无常义。苦义。空义。无我义说。依无常义者。谓从自种子生。亦待他缘。又从他缘生。亦待自种子。又从自种子。又从他缘生。而种及缘于此生事。无作无用。亦无运转。又复此二因性功能。非不是有。 

Explanation: Question: The World-Honored One has said that dependent arising is most profound. How should this profound meaning be known? Answer: It can be known through ten aspects. The profound meaning of dependent arising should be known through ten aspects, namely those expounded in reliance on the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, and the meaning of no-self.  

The meaning of relying on impermanence means that dependent arising is born from the seeds of one's own substance, and at the same time must also rely on the ripening of other conditions, so that together they serve as the conditions for the birth of dependent arising. Furthermore, when dependent arising is born relying on other conditions, it must also have the condition of its own seeds; the two are indispensable to each other and must appear together for dependent arising to be produced. Furthermore, dependent arising not only relies on its own seeds but is also born relying on other conditions; yet, with respect to the birth of dependent arising, the seeds and the conditions have no substantial function or effect, nor do they revolve or move along with the dependent arising. Nevertheless, the functional capacity of these two causes is not nonexistent—it does exist—but it simply cannot directly give birth to dependent arising.  

For example, the eye consciousness is a dependent arising. The seed of the eye consciousness's own substance is the consciousness seed of the eye consciousness. Besides the consciousness seed, there are eight other conditions for the arising of the eye consciousness; material sense-objects are one of these conditions. Only when these conditions gather together can the eye consciousness be born; lacking even one condition, the eye consciousness cannot arise. However, the eye consciousness is not born from these conditions themselves; rather, the eighth consciousness relies on these conditions to give birth to the eye consciousness. That is to say, the function of giving birth to the eye consciousness belongs to the eighth consciousness, not to the eye consciousness's own seed-condition or the other eight conditions. With respect to giving birth to the eye consciousness, the nine conditions have no substantial effect; they are merely assisting conditions and dominant conditions.  

Original text: 又诸有支。虽无始来。其相成就。然刹那刹那。新新相转。又缘起支。虽刹那速灭。然似停住运动相现。依苦义者。谓缘起支。一味苦相。而似三种相现。 

Explanation: Furthermore, the twelve links of existence, although their characteristics have been established since beginningless kalpas, are nevertheless arising and ceasing moment by moment; new characteristics revolve forth and pass away, and the next new characteristic appears in turn, with their functions continuously operating, sustaining the arising, abiding, altering, and ceasing of the twelve links of existence. Moreover, although these links of dependent arising arise and cease rapidly in each instant, they display characteristics that seem to involve stasis and motion.  

In reliance on the meaning of suffering in dependent arising: dependent arising is purely a single flavor of the characteristic of suffering, with no other characteristic, yet it appears as if there were three characteristics—suffering, happiness, and neither-suffering-nor-happiness.  

Original text: 依空义者。谓缘起支。虽离有情作者受者。然似不离。显现而说。依无我义者。谓缘起支。虽不自在。实无有我相。然似我相显现。依胜义谛。诸法自性虽不可说。而言诸法自性可说。

Explanation: In accordance with the meaning of emptiness in dependent arising: although the links of dependent arising are apart from the agent and experiencer among sentient beings, they appear as if not apart from them, and it is on this basis of manifestation that it is spoken of as emptiness. In accordance with the meaning of no-self: although the links of dependent arising are not self-governing and in truth have no characteristic of self, they nevertheless appear as if a characteristic of self were manifest. In accordance with the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), although the self-nature of these dependent arisings cannot be spoken of, it is still said that the self-nature of dharmas can be spoken of.