Abhidharmakośa, Volume Nine

Original text:由如是理为证。故知若尔。便应有大过失。诸由正理。可得证知。一切皆应不须更说。故彼所说。不成释难。然上所言。经不别说。老死有果。无明有因。生死便成有终始者。此难非理。经意别故。亦非所说理不圆满。所以者何。此经但欲除所化者。三际愚故。由所化者。唯生是疑。云何有情。三世连续。谓从前世今世得生。今世复能生于后世。 

Explanation: By this reasoning as proof, it should be known that if it were as stated—that non-virtuous attention is the cause of ignorance—there would be a great fault. Everything could be verified through virtuous attention, and nothing more would need to be said; therefore that person's claim that the cause of ignorance—non-virtuous attention—belongs to what is subsumed under the link of grasping would not become an obstacle to our explanation of the Dharma. However, the viewpoint stated above was never spoken in the sūtras: if there were a fruit after old age and death, and a cause before ignorance, then birth-and-death would become something with an end and a beginning—this objection is unreasonable, for the intent of the sūtra is otherwise; nor is the reasoning stated in the sūtra incomplete. Why is this said? This sūtra only wishes to remove the delusion of the three periods in those to be guided, because those to be guided give rise only to this doubt: why are sentient beings continuous through the three periods—that is, this present life arises from a past life, and from this present life one can again give rise to a future life? 

Original text:如来但为除彼疑情。说十二支。如前已辩。谓前后中际。为遣他愚惑。如世尊告诸苾刍言。吾当为汝说缘起法。缘已生法。此二何异。且本论文。此二无别。以俱言摄一切法故。如何未来未已起法。可同过现说缘已生。云何未来未已作法。得同过现说名有为。 

Explanation: The Tathāgata, solely to remove their questioning doubt, taught the twelve links, as the anterior, posterior, and middle periods were already clarified before, in order to dispel the delusion of others. For example, the World-Honored One told the bhikṣus: I shall teach you the dharma of dependent origination and the dharmas that have arisen through conditions—what is the difference between these two? The root treatise says these two are not different, because both are said to encompass all dharmas. Why can future dharmas that have not yet arisen be said, like past and present dharmas, to be dharmas that have arisen through conditions? Why can future dharmas that have not yet been made be called conditioned dharmas, the same as past and present dharmas? 

Original text:由能作思力已造故。若尔无漏。如何有为。彼亦善思力已造故。若尔就得涅槃应然。理实应言。依种类说。如未变坏。亦得色名。由种类同。所说无失。 

Explanation: Because they have already been made by the power of deliberation capable of action, they are said to be conditioned dharmas. If this dharma is untainted, how can it be said to be conditioned? Because untainted dharmas are also made by the power of wholesome deliberation, and attaining nirvāṇa through untainted dharmas is likewise a matter of course; in terms of reasoning it should indeed be said to be conditioned. It is spoken of according to the class of dharmas: a dharma that has not yet deteriorated should also bear the name of form; since the class is the same, what is said has no fault.