Abhidharma-kośa Volume IX

(7) Original Text: By reasoning as proof, it is thus known that if it were so, there should be a great fault. All that can be known through correct reasoning should not require further explanation. Therefore, what he said does not constitute a resolution of the difficulty. However, regarding what was stated above—that the sutra does not separately state that old age and death have a result, and ignorance has a cause, thus making birth and death have a beginning and an end—this objection is unreasonable. The meaning of the sutra is different, nor is the reasoning stated therein incomplete. Why is this so? This sutra only intends to eliminate the ignorance of the three periods (past, present, future) in those to be guided. Because those to be guided only have this doubt: How can sentient beings continue through the three periods? That is, how do they arise from the past life into the present life, and how can the present life again give rise to a future life?

Explanation: By such reasoning as proof, it should be known that if, as claimed, incorrect attention is the cause of ignorance, there would be a great fault. Everything can be known through correct attention; nothing more needs to be said. Therefore, the view that incorrect attention is the cause of ignorance, belonging to the category of grasping (upādāna), does not become an obstacle to our explanation of the Dharma. However, the view mentioned above is not stated in the sutra. If old age and death were to have a result beyond themselves, and ignorance were to have a cause prior to it, then birth and death would have a beginning and an end. This objection is unreasonable, for the sutra’s meaning is not thus, nor is the reasoning stated in the sutra incomplete. Why? This sutra only aims to eliminate the ignorance of the three periods in those to be guided. Because those to be guided only have this doubt: How are sentient beings continuous through the three periods? That is, how do they arise from the past life into the present life, and how can the present life again give rise to a future life?

Original Text: The Tathagata spoke the twelve links solely to eliminate that doubt, as previously explained. That is, the past, future, and present periods are taught to dispel others’ delusions. As the Bhagavān addressed the Bhikkhus, saying, “I shall explain to you the principle of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and phenomena arisen from conditions (pratītyasamutpanna dharma). What is the difference between these two?” Moreover, the root text states that these two are not different, because both statements encompass all phenomena. How can future phenomena, which have not yet arisen, be spoken of as “arisen from conditions” in the same way as past and present phenomena? How can future phenomena, which have not yet been produced, be spoken of as “conditioned” (saṃskṛta) in the same way as past and present phenomena?

Explanation: The Tathagata spoke the twelve links of dependent origination solely to eliminate their doubt, as the past, future, and present periods were previously explained to dispel their delusion. For example, the Bhagavān told the Bhikkhus, “I shall explain to you the principle of dependent origination and phenomena arisen from conditions. What is the difference between these two?” The root text states that these two are not different, because both refer to dependent origination encompassing all phenomena. How can future phenomena, which have not yet arisen, be spoken of as “arisen from conditions” in the same way as past and present phenomena? How can future phenomena, which have not yet been produced, be spoken of as “conditioned phenomena” in the same way as past and present phenomena?

Original Text: Because the power of volition (cetanā) has already created it. If so, how are the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) phenomena conditioned? They too are created by the power of wholesome volition. If so, then the attainment of nirvana should also be so. In truth, it should be said that this is stated according to kind. Just as that which has not yet disintegrated can still be called “form” (rūpa), because it belongs to the same kind, what is stated is not erroneous.

Explanation: Because the power of volition has already created it, it is called a conditioned phenomenon. If it is unconditioned, how can it be called conditioned? Because unconditioned phenomena are also created by the power of wholesome volition, and the attainment of nirvana through unconditioned phenomena is indeed appropriate, it should, in principle, be called conditioned. It is stated according to the kind of phenomenon. Just as that which has not yet disintegrated can still be called “form” because it belongs to the same kind, what is stated is not erroneous.