Abhidharmakośa, Volume Nine

（七）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: Taking this reasoning as proof, it should therefore be known that if one were to say that inappropriate mental engagement is the cause of ignorance, there would be a great fault. If everything could be realized and verified through appropriate mental engagement, then nothing further would need to be said; thus what that person says—that inappropriate mental engagement, being the cause of ignorance subsumed under the link of grasping—does not constitute an objection to our explanation of the Dharma. However, regarding the view stated above, the sūtra does not separately state that old age and death have a fruit, or that ignorance has a cause, such that birth-and-death would thereby come to have an end and a beginning; this objection is unreasonable, for the intent of the sūtra is different. Nor is it the case that the reasoning set forth is incomplete. Why is this so? This sūtra merely intends to remove the delusion of the three periods of time in those who are to be guided, because those to be guided give rise only to this doubt: how is it that sentient beings continue continuously through the three periods of time—that is, the present life is born from a past life, and from the 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 in order to remove their doubts, taught the twelve links, as has already been discerned above—the prior, subsequent, and middle periods of time—in order to dispel their delusions. For example, the World-Honored One told the bhikṣus: "I shall expound to you dependent arising and that which has arisen through conditions—what is the difference between these two?" The root treatise states that these two are not different, because both are said to subsume all dharmas. How can dharmas of the future that have not yet arisen be spoken of, like those of the past and present, as having arisen through conditions? How can dharmas of the future that have not yet been made be spoken of, like those of the past and present, as conditioned 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 producing them, they are said to be conditioned dharmas. If so, how can untainted dharmas be said to be conditioned? Because untainted dharmas are likewise made by the power of wholesome deliberation, it is only natural that nirvāṇa is attained through untainted dharmas, and from the standpoint of principle they should indeed also be said to be conditioned dharmas. It should in truth be said that this is stated according to the category of the dharma: just as a form that has not yet deteriorated can still bear the name "form," because the category is the same, what is stated is without fault.