Abhidharmakośa, Volume Nine

(9) Original text: 如契经说。云何为无明。谓前际无智。乃至广说。此了义说。不可抑令成不了义。故前所说。分位缘起。经义相违。非一切经皆了义说。亦有随胜说。如象迹喻经。云何内地界。谓发毛爪等。虽彼非无余色等法。而就胜说。此亦应尔。

Explanation: For example, as stated in the sūtra: what is ignorance? Ignorance is being without wisdom and without knowledge regarding the dharmas of the anterior limit, and it is extensively expounded that one is likewise without wisdom and knowledge regarding the dharmas of the middle and posterior limits. This is the definitive teaching (nītārtha); one cannot suppress a definitive teaching into a non-definitive one. Therefore the previously stated dependent arising by stages contradicts the meaning of the sūtra. Not all sūtras are definitive teachings; some are spoken in accordance with the more excellent dharma meaning. For example, the Elephant's Footprint Simile Sūtra says: what is the internal earth element? The internal earth element is hair, body hair, nails, and so forth. Although the internal earth element is not without other material forms that could be enumerated and indicated, only the more obvious and prominent material forms are used as representatives. Likewise, ignorance is also like this.

Original text: 所引非证。非彼经中。欲以地界辩发毛等。成非具说。然彼经中以发毛等分别地界。非有地界越发毛等。故彼契经。是具足说。此经所说无明等支。亦应如彼。成具足说。除所说外。无复有余。

Explanation: The hair, body hair, and nails cited in the sūtra are not a proof. The sūtra intends to use the earth element to clarify the attributes of hair, body hair, and nails — it is not an incomplete exposition. The sūtra defines the earth element by means of hair and body hair; it does not say that the earth element extends beyond hair, nails, and so forth. Therefore that sūtra is a complete exposition of the earth element. The links such as ignorance spoken of in this sūtra should also be like that — a complete exposition; apart from what is stated, there is nothing else.

Original text: 岂不地界。越发毛等洟泪等中。其体亦有洟等。皆亦说在彼经。如说复有身中余物。设复同彼有余无明。今应显示。若引异类。置无明中。此有何益。虽于诸位。皆有五蕴。然随此有无。彼定有无者。可立此法为彼法支。或有五蕴。而无有行。随福非福不动行。识乃至爱等。是故经义。即如所说。

Explanation: Is it not the case that, beyond hair, nails, and so forth, the internal earth element also includes material forms such as mucus and tears? The body also contains material forms such as mucus, and the sūtra also has such statements. For example, the sūtra also says that there are other material forms within the body. If, in the same way, it is said that there is other ignorance, it should now be shown to us; if dharmas that are not ignorance are classified as ignorance, what benefit is there in that? Although each stage of the twelve links of dependent arising has the five aggregates, if the presence or absence of the five aggregates is definitively determined according to the presence or absence of the twelve links, then this dharma-link can be established as that dharma-link. Some links have the five aggregates but no formations — such as the immovable formations that accord with meritorious and non-meritorious [formations], and the links of immovable consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense bases, contact, feeling, and craving, etc. Therefore the meaning of the sūtra is just as stated.

Original text: 所说四句。理亦不然。若未来诸法。非缘已生者。便违契经。经说。云何缘已生法。谓无明行。至生老死。或应不许二在未来。是则坏前所立三际有说。缘起是无为法。以契经言。如来出世。若不出世。如是缘起法性常住。由如是意。理则可然。若由别意。理则不然。

Explanation: The principle of the four alternatives stated above is also not like that. If it is said that dharmas not yet arisen in the future are not dharmas already arisen from conditions, this contradicts what the sūtra says. The sūtra says: what are conditionally-arisen dharmas? Ignorance and formations, up to birth and old age and death — all twelve links are conditionally-arisen dharmas. Some do not agree that the two links of cause and effect also appear in the future; this would destroy the previously established doctrine of existence across the anterior, posterior, and middle limits. Dependent arising is an unconditioned dharma, because the sūtra says that whether or not the Tathāgata appears in the world, the nature of dependent arising abides permanently without decay. Based on this reasoning, the principle holds; by another meaning, the principle does not hold.