Abhidharma Kośa, Volume IX

(8) Original text: Now, to correctly interpret the meaning of the sūtra, the verse states: "Here, the intended meaning correctly teaches that when the cause arises, the fruit has already been born." The treatise explains: The causal divisions of the links are called 'dependent origination' (pratītyasamutpāda), because they serve as conditions that can produce effects. The resultant divisions of the links are called 'dependently arisen' (pratītyasamutpanna), because they are all born from conditions. Thus, both meanings are established for all these [phenomena], as all links possess the nature of cause and effect.

Explanation: Now, to correctly explain the intended meaning of the sūtra, there is a verse: The intended meaning in this sūtra correctly states that when the cause arises, the fruit has already been born. For example, when contact (sparśa) arises, feeling (vedanā) has already been born. The treatise states: The causal divisions of the twelve links are called the links of dependent origination, because these causal links serve as conditions that can produce the resultant links. For instance, the contact link is a link of dependent origination; with contact as the condition, it produces the fruit of feeling; with feeling as the condition, it produces the fruit of craving (tṛṣṇā). The resultant divisions of the twelve links – feeling, craving, grasping (upādāna), and so forth – are said to be dependently arisen, meaning conditions like contact, feeling, craving, etc. Therefore, it can be said that all phenomena arise from conditions. Thus, all phenomena are established with both meanings – cause and effect – because the twelve links all possess the nature of cause and effect.

Original text: If so, the establishment [of all phenomena having the nature of cause and effect] should not be simultaneous. Not so, because the objects of observation differ. That is, if one observes this [phenomenon], it is called 'dependently arisen'; it is not that observing this same [phenomenon] is also called 'dependent origination'. Just as with causes and effects, or names like father and son. The Venerable Mānava [held this view].

Explanation: If this assertion holds true, then establishing that all phenomena possess the nature of cause and effect should not mean cause and effect arise simultaneously. For example, the feeling link is the fruit of the contact link; contact is the cause of feeling. When contact initially arises, feeling does not arise simultaneously; feeling only arises when contact is fully complete. Cause and effect are not simultaneous. If one insists that cause and effect arise simultaneously, then the phenomena being observed would involve discrepancies and omissions. For instance, if one observes this contact phenomenon and says it is the condition, and the resultant feeling link has already arisen (thus called a dependently arisen phenomenon), yet feeling did not arise simultaneously as a dependent origination link. For example, terms like cause and effect, or father and son, are only established when the causes and conditions are complete. If the causes are not yet complete, the effect cannot appear immediately. If the causes are incomplete, the effect does not appear, and thus there is no talk of cause and effect; if the conditions for being a son are not yet complete, the name 'father' cannot be established, and thus there is no talk of father and son.

Original text: The intended meaning is that some phenomena are dependent origination but not dependently arisen. One should formulate four propositions. The first proposition: Future phenomena. The second proposition: The past and present phenomena at the final mental state of an Arhat. The third proposition: The remaining past and present phenomena. The fourth proposition: All unconditioned phenomena. The Sautrāntika masters made this declaration. Here, what is stated – is it expressing their own view, or is it the meaning of the sūtra? If it is the meaning of the sūtra, the sūtra's meaning is not so. Why? For instance, the previously explained twelvefold dependent origination based on stages, taking the five aggregates as the twelve links, contradicts the sūtra, because the sūtra states differently.

Explanation: The intended meaning in the sūtra states that some phenomena are dependent origination but are not dependently arisen (i.e., they are conditions but not yet produced effects). Phenomena that are not dependent origination should be explained through four propositions. The first proposition is future phenomena: the present conditions have not yet produced future phenomena, so the dependent origination link has not yet appeared. The second proposition is the past and present phenomena at the final mental state of an Arhat: although the past and present conditions of the Arhat have arisen, future existences will not arise, so the dependent origination link ceases to produce. The third proposition is the remaining past and present phenomena excluding the Arhat's final mental state: although these phenomena are conditions, the phenomena they could produce have not yet been born, so the dependent origination link does not exist. The fourth proposition is all unconditioned phenomena (asaṃskṛta dharma): since they are called unconditioned, there is no grasping mind; thus, present actions do not produce future phenomena, and there is no dependent origination.

Regarding this, the Sautrāntika masters explained it thus. However, did they express their own interpretation or the original meaning of the sūtra? If it is the meaning of the sūtra, the sūtra's meaning is not like this. Why is that? As explained earlier, the twelvefold dependent origination based on stages, taking the five aggregates as the twelve links, contradicts the sūtra, for the sūtra does not state it that way.