Abhidharmakośa, Volume Nine

（六）原文：有余释言。余契经说。非理作意。为无明因。无明复生非理作意。非理作意亦取支摄。故亦说在此契经中。此非理作意。如何取支摄。若言由此与彼相应。则爱无明亦应彼摄。设许彼摄。云何能证非理作意为无明因。若但彼摄即证因果。爱与无明亦彼摄故。应不别立为缘起支。 

Explanation: Some others explain that other sūtras state that non-accordant mental engagement is the cause of ignorance, while ignorance in turn gives rise to non-accordant mental engagement. Non-accordant mental engagement is a dharma subsumed under the link of grasping, and therefore it is also spoken of in this sūtra. Why is this non-accordant mental engagement subsumed under the link of grasping? If it is said that this is because it is associated with grasping, then craving and ignorance should also be subsumed under it. Even if craving and ignorance were allowed to be subsumed under grasping, how could it be proven that non-accordant mental engagement is the cause of ignorance? If mere subsumption under grasping were sufficient to establish cause and effect, then since craving and ignorance are also subsumed under grasping, they should not be separately established as links of dependent origination.  

原文：余复释言。余契经说。非理作意为无明因。无明复生非理作意。非理作意说在触时。故余经说。眼色为缘生痴。所生染浊作意。此于受位。必引无明。故余经言。由无明触。所生诸受为缘生爱。是故触时。非理作意与受俱转。无明为缘。由此无明。无无因过。亦不须立余缘起支。又缘起支无无穷失。非理作意从痴生故。 

Explanation: Yet others further explain that other sūtras state that non-accordant mental engagement is the cause of ignorance, and ignorance in turn gives rise to non-accordant mental engagement; non-accordant mental engagement is spoken of as arising at the stage of contact. Therefore other sūtras say that with the eye and forms as conditions, delusion arises, and the defiled and turbid mental engagement born of that delusion, at the stage of feeling, will certainly draw forth ignorance. Therefore other sūtras say that with the feelings born of ignorance-conditioned contact as conditions, craving arises. Thus, at the stage of contact, non-accordant mental engagement operates together with feeling, both taking ignorance as their condition. Because ignorance exists as a link, there is no fault of causelessness, and there is no need to establish other links of dependent origination. Moreover, the links of dependent origination are free from the fault of infinite regress, because non-accordant mental engagement is born from delusion.  

原文：如契经说。眼色为缘生痴。所生染浊作意。余经虽有如是诚言。然此经中应更须说。不须更说如何证知。由理证知。何等为理。非离无明。受能为爱缘。以阿罗汉受不生爱故。又非无倒触。能为染受缘。亦非离无明。触可成颠倒。阿罗汉触非颠倒故。 

Explanation: As stated in the sūtras, with the eye and forms as conditions, delusion arises, and from that delusion defiled mental engagement is born. Although other sūtras contain such sincere words, this sūtra should state it further. If it is not stated further, how can it be realized and known that ignorance can give rise to non-accordant mental engagement? It is realized and known through the principle of accordant mental engagement. What is the accordant principle? It is that feeling, not apart from ignorance, can serve as the condition for the arising of craving—because an arhat's feeling does not give rise to craving, since the arhat is free of ignorance. Furthermore, it is not contact that is devoid of perversion that can serve as the condition for defiled feeling; rather, because the contact is perverted, the feeling is defiled. Nor can contact become perverted apart from ignorance—it is precisely contact accompanied by ignorance that is perverted. Since an arhat has no ignorance, the arhat's contact is not perverted, and the feeling that arises is not defiled either.