[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823) › 9.80 # 俱舍論頌疏論本 9.80 俱舍論頌疏論本 9.80 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9.80) 釋曰：此兩句正釋經意。言此中者，此契經中也。因起果已生者，此經中意，諸支因分說名緣起，由因有緣，能起果故，故知因分名為緣起。諸支果分說緣已生，由果皆從緣所生故，故知果分名緣已生。由此理故，如是一切二義俱成，諸支皆有因果性故。解云：一切者，十二因緣也。二義者，緣起、緣已生也。又論云：「若爾，安立應不俱成。」解云：難也。諸支因果體既無別，如何安立緣起、緣已生法？故云應不俱成。論云：「不爾，所觀有差別故，謂若能觀此名緣已生，非即觀斯復名緣起，猶如因果、父子等名。」解云：答前難也。所望不同，二義常別，如行望無明常名緣已生，不名緣起也。若行望識常名緣起，不名緣已生也。故體雖一，得成二義，如世間子望父邊常名子，不名父；父望子邊常名父，不名子，雖是一，得有二名，況法可知。 > Explanation: These two lines correctly explain the intention of the sūtra. As for "Herein": it means in this sūtra. As for "it directly says that the cause produces and the effect is arisen": the meaning of this sūtra is that the causal factor among the links is called "dependent origination" (pratītyasamutpāda) because, having conditions, a cause can produce its effect; hence we know that the causal factor is called dependent origination. The fruition factor among the links is called "dependently arisen" (pratītyasamutpanna) because fruitions are all arisen from conditions; hence we know that the fruition factor is called dependently arisen. Due to this principle, both meanings are established in all these \[links\], for all the links have the nature of both cause and effect. Explanation: "All" refers to the twelve links of dependent origination. "Both meanings" refers to dependent origination and dependently arisen. Furthermore, the treatise states: "If so, the establishment \[of both\] should not simultaneously succeed." Explanation: This is an objection. Since the substance of cause and effect in each link is not different, how can one establish things that are dependent origination and things that are dependently arisen? Thus it says they should not simultaneously succeed. The treatise states: "Not so, because there is a distinction in what is viewed; that is, if one can view this as dependently arisen, one does not simultaneously view it and call it dependent origination, just like the designations of cause and effect, father and son, and so forth." Explanation: This answers the preceding objection. In terms of different perspectives, the two meanings are always distinct. For example, formations (saṃskāra) in relation to ignorance (avidyā) are always called dependently arisen and not dependent origination; yet formations in relation to consciousness (vijñāna) are always called dependent origination and not dependently arisen. Therefore, though the substance is one, the two meanings are accomplished. Just as in the world a son in relation to a father is always called son and not father, and a father in relation to a son is always called father and not son—though it is one \[person\], there can be two designations—how much more so may this be understood for dharmas. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9.79) - [Next: 9.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9.81) - [Up: 9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823~en-mt.9.80) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [阿毘達磨俱舍論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.9.37) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.9.80) · Pramāṇa