A. Definition of Dependent Origination

1. [517] The turn has now come for the exposition of the dependent origination itself, and the dependently-originated states comprised by the word “etc.,” since these still remain out of the states called the “soil” (bhūmi), of which it was said above, “The states classed as aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, and dependent origination, etc., are the ‘soil’” (XIV.32).

2. Herein, firstly, it is the states beginning with ignorance that should be understood as dependent origination. For this is said by the Blessed One: “And what is the dependent origination, bhikkhus? With ignorance as condition there are [volitional] formations; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality; with mentalitymateriality as condition, the sixfold base; with the sixfold base as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth; with birth as condition there is ageing-anddeath, and sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair;thus there is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. This is called the dependent origination, bhikkhus” (S II 1).

3. Secondly, it is the states beginning with ageing-and-death that should be understood as dependently-originated states. For this is said by the Blessed One: “And what are the dependently-originated states, bhikkhus? Ageing-and-death is impermanent, bhikkhus, formed, dependently originated, subject to destruction, subject to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessation.^[1] Birth is impermanent, bhikkhus, … Becoming … Clinging … Craving … Feeling … Contact … The sixfold base … Mentality-materiality … Consciousness … Formations … Ignorance is impermanent, bhikkhus, formed, dependently originated, subject to destruction, subject to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessation. These are called the dependently-originated states, bhikkhus” (S II 26). [518]

4. Here is a brief explanation. The states that are conditions should be understood as the dependent origination. The states generated by such and such conditions are dependently-originated states.

5. How is that to be known? By the Blessed One’s word. For it is precisely those states which are conditions, that with the synonyms beginning with “reality” have been called “dependent origination” by the Blessed One when teaching the dependent origination in the sutta on the Teaching of the Dependent Origination and Dependently-originated States thus:

“And what is dependent origination, bhikkhus?

“With birth as condition, bhikkhus, there is ageing and death. Whether Perfect Ones arise or do not arise, there yet remains that element, relatedness of states, regularity of states, specific conditionally. The Perfect One discovers it, penetrates to it. Having discovered it, penetrated to it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, establishes, exposes, expounds, and explains it: ‘See,’ he says, ‘With birth as condition there is ageing and death.’

“With becoming as condition, bhikkhus, there is birth … With ignorance as condition, bhikkhus, there are formations. Whether Perfect Ones arise or do not arise, there yet remains that element, relatedness of states, regularity of states, specific conditionally. The Perfect One discovers it, penetrates to it. Having discovered it, penetrated to it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, establishes, exposes, expounds and explains it: ‘See,’ he says, ‘With ignorance as condition there are formations.’

“So, bhikkhus, that herein which is reality, not unreality, not otherness, specific conditionality: that is called dependent origination” (S II 25f.).

Consequently, it should be understood that dependent origination has the characteristic of being the conditions for the states beginning with ageing-anddeath. Its function is to continue [the process of] suffering. It is manifested as the wrong path.

6. Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, neither less nor more, it is called reality (suchness). Because once the conditions have met in combination there is no non-producing, even for an instant, of the states they generate, it is called not unreality (not unsuchness). Because there is no arising of one state with another state’s conditions, it is called not otherness. Because there is a condition, or because there is a total of conditions, for these states beginning with ageing-and-death as already stated, it is called specific conditionality.

7. Here is the word meaning: idappaccayā (lit. that-conditions) = imesaṃ paccayā (conditions for those); idappaccayā (that-conditions) = idappaccayatā (thatconditionality, conditionality for those, specific conditionality). Or alternatively, idappaccayatā (that-conditionality) = idappaccayānaṃ samūho (the total of thatconditions, total specific conditionality).

8. The characteristic must be sought from grammar. Some, in fact, [say that the expression paṭicca samuppāda (dependent origination) is characterized thus:] “having depended (paṭicca), a right (sammā) arising (uppāda), [depending on causes rightly by] disregarding such causes conjectured by sectarians as the Primordial Essence (Prakºti), World Soul (Puruåa), and so on.” So what they call dependent origination (paṭicca samuppāda) is a simple arising (uppāda) [for they equate the prefix saṃ only with sammā (rightly) and ignore saṃ (with, con-)]. That is untenable. [519] Why? (1) There is no such sutta; (2) it contradicts suttas; (3) it admits of no profound treatment; and (4) it is ungrammatical.

9. (1) No sutta describes the dependent origination as simple arising.

(2) Anyone who asserts that dependent origination is of that kind involves himself in conflict with the Padesavihāra Sutta. How? The Newly Enlightened One’s abiding (vihāra) is the bringing of the dependent origination to mind, because, of these words of the Blessed One’s: “Then in the first watch of the night the Blessed One brought to mind the dependent origination in direct and reverse order” [as origination and cessation] (Vin I 1; Ud 2). Now, “padesavihāra” is the abiding (vihāra) in one part (desa) of that, according as it is said, “Bhikkhus, I abode in a part of the abiding in which I abode when I was newly enlightened” (S V 12; Paṭis I 107). And there he abode in the vision of structure of conditions, not in the vision of simple arising, according as it is said, “So I understood feeling with wrong view as its condition, and feeling with right view as its condition, and feeling with wrong thinking as its condition …” (S V 12), all of which should be quoted in full. So anyone who asserts that dependent origination is simple arising involves himself in conflict with the Padesavihāra Sutta.

10. There is likewise contradiction of the Kaccāna Sutta. For in the Kaccāna Sutta it is said, “When a man sees correctly with right understanding the origination of the world, Kaccāna, he does not say of the world that it is not” (S II 17). And there it is the dependent origination in forward order, not simple arising, that, as the origination of the world from its conditions, is set forth in order to eliminate the annihilation view. For the annihilation view is not eliminated by seeing simple arising; but it is eliminated by seeing the chain of conditions as a chain of fruits following on a chain of conditions. So anyone who asserts that the dependent origination is simple arising involves himself in contradiction of the Kaccāna Sutta.

11. (3) It admits of no profound treatment: this has been said by the Blessed One, “This dependent origination is profound, Ānanda, and profound it appears” (D II 55; S II 92). And the profundity is fourfold as we shall explain below (XVII.304f.); but there is none of that in simple arising. And this dependent origination is explained [by the teachers] as adorned with the fourfold method (XVII.309); but there is no [need of] any such tetrad of methods in simple arising. So dependent origination is not simple arising, since that admits of no profound treatment.

12. (4) It is ungrammatical: [520] this word paṭicca (lit. “having depended”; freely

“due to,” “dependent”), [being a gerund of the verb paṭi + eti, to go back to], establishes a meaning [in a formula of establishment by verb] when it is construed as past with the same subject [as that of the principal verb], as in the sentence “Having depended on (paṭicca = ‘due to’) the eye and visible objects, eyeconsciousness arises (uppajjati)” (S II 72). But if it is construed here with the word uppāda (arising), [which is a noun], in a formula of establishment by noun, there is a breach of grammar, because there is no shared subject [as there is in above-quoted sentence], and so it does not establish any meaning al all. So the dependent origination is not simple arising because that is ungrammatical.

13. Here it might be [argued]: “We shall add the words ‘comes to be’ (hoti) thus: ‘Having depended, arising comes to be’ (paṭicca, samuppādo hoti).” That will not do. Why not? Because there is no instance in which it has been added, and because the fallacy of the arising of an arising follows. For in such passages as “Paṭiccasamuppādaṃ vo bhikkhave desessāmi. Katamo ca bhikkhave paṭiccasamuppādo … Ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave paṭiccasamuppādo (I shall teach you the dependent origination, bhikkhus. And what is the dependent origination? … This is called the dependent origination, bhikkhus)” (S II 1), the words “comes to be” (hoti) are not added in any single instance. And there is no [such expression as] “arising comes to be”: if there were, it would be tantamount to saying that arising itself had an arising too.

14. And those are wrong who imagine that specific conditionality (idappaccayatā) is the specific conditions’ [abstract] essence—what is called “abstract essence” being a [particular] mode in ignorance, etc., that acts as cause in the manifestation of formations, etc.—and that the term “dependent origination” is used for an alteration in formations when there is that [particular mode in the way of occurrence of ignorance]. Why are they wrong? Because it is ignorance, etc., themselves that are called causes. For in the following passage it is ignorance, etc., themselves, not their alteration, that are called the causes [of these states]: “Therefore, Ānanda, just this is the cause, this is the source, this is the origin, this is the condition, for ageing-and-death, that is to say, birth … for formations, that is to say, (ignorance)” (D II 57–63—the last clause is not in the Dīgha text). Therefore it is the actual states themselves as conditions that should be understood as “dependent origination.” So what was said above (§4) can be understood as rightly said.

15. If any notion arises in the guise of a literal interpretation of the term “dependent origination” (paṭicca-samuppāda) to the effect that it is only arising that is stated, it should be got rid of by apprehending the meaning of this expression in the following way. For:

In double form this term relates to a totality of state
Produced from a conditionality;
Hence the conditions for that sum
Through metaphor’s device have come
To bear their fruits’ name figuratively
In the Blessed One’s exposition.

16. This term “dependent origination,” when applied to the total of states produced from the [total] conditionality, must be taken in two ways. [521] For that [total] ought to be arrived at (paṭicco—adj.),^[2] since when it is arrived at (paṭiyamāno), it leads to [supramundane] welfare and bliss and so the wise [regard] it as worthy to be arrived at (paccetuṃ); and then, when it arises (uppajjamāno), it does so “together with” (saha) and “rightly” (sammā), not singly or causelessly, thus it is a co-arising (samuppādo). Consequently: it is to be arrived at (paṭicco) and it is a co-arising (samuppādo), thus it is dependent origination (paṭicca-samuppāda). Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a coarising (samuppāda); but it does so having depended (paṭicca—ger.) in combination with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having depended (paṭicca), is a co-arising (samuppāda), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paṭicca-samuppāda). And the total of causes is a condition for that [total of states produced from the conditionality], so, because it is a condition for that, this [total of causes] is called, “dependent origination,” using for it the term ordinarily used for its fruit just as in the world molasses, which is a condition for phlegm, is spoken of thus, “Molasses is phlegm,” or just as in the Dispensation the arising of Buddhas, which is a condition for bliss, is spoken of thus, “The arising of Buddhas is bliss” (Dhp 194).

17. Or alternatively:

The sum of causes too they call
“Facing its counterpart,” so all
Is in that sense “dependent,” as they tell;
This sum of causes too, as stated,
Gives fruits that rise associated,
So “co-arising” it is called as well.

18. This total of causes—indicated severally under the heading of each cause, beginning with ignorance—for the manifestation of formations, etc., is called “dependent” (paṭicco—adj.), taking it as “facing, gone to, its counterpart” (paṭimukham ito) owing to the mutual interdependence of the factors in the combination, in the sense both that they produce common fruit and that none can be dispensed with. And it is called a “co-arising” (samuppādo) since it causes the states that occur in unresolved mutual interdependence to arise associatedly. Consequently: it is dependent (paṭicco) and a co-arising (samuppādo), thus in this way also it is dependent origination (paṭicca-samuppāda).

19. Another method:

This total conditionally, acting interdependently,
Arouses states together equally;
So this too is a reason here wherefore the Greatest Sage, the Seer,
Gave to this term its form thus succinctly.

20. Among the conditions described under the headings of ignorance, etc., the respective conditions that make the [conditionally-arisen] states beginning with formations arise are incapable of making them arise when not mutually dependent and when deficient. Therefore this conditionality by depending (paṭicca—ger.) makes states arise (uppādeti) equally and together (samaṃ saha ca), not piecemeal and successively—so it has been termed here thus by the Sage who is skilled in phraseology that conforms to its meaning: it has been accurately termed “dependent origination” (paṭicca samuppāda), is the meaning.

21. And while so termed:

The first component will deny the false view of eternity
And so on, and the second will prevent
The nihilistic type of view and others like it, while the two
Together show the true way that is meant.

The first: the word “dependent” (paṭicca) indicates the combination of the conditions, [522] since states in the process of occurring exist in dependence on the combining of their conditions; and it shows that they are not eternal, etc., thus denying the various doctrines of eternalism, no-cause, fictitious-cause, and power-wielder.^[3] What purpose indeed would the combining of conditions serve, if things were eternal, or if they occurred without cause, and so on?

23. The second: the word “origination” (samuppāda) indicates the arising of the states, since these occur when their conditions combine, and it shows how to prevent annihilationism, etc., thus preventing the various doctrines of annihilation [of a soul], nihilism, [“there is no use in giving,” etc.,] and moral-inefficacy-ofaction, [“there is no other world,” etc.]; for when states [are seen to] arise again and again, each conditioned by its predecessor, how can the doctrines of annihilationism, nihilism, and moral-inefficacy-of-action be maintained?

24. The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression “dependent origination” (paṭicca-samuppāda) represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, “He who acts is he who reaps” and “One acts while another reaps” (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, “Not insisting on local language and not overriding normal usage” (M III 234).^[4] This, in the first place, is the meaning of the mere words “dependent origination” (paṭicca-samuppāda).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

“‘Subject to destruction’ (khaya-dhamma) means that its individual essence is the state of being destroyed (khayana-sabhāva)” (Vism-mhṭ 549). The other expressions are explained in the same way.

[2]:

Paṭicco as a declinable adjective is not in PED. Patīyamāna (“when it is arrived at”): “When it is gone to by direct confrontation (paṭimukhaṃ upeyamāno) by means of knowledge’s going; when it is penetrated to (abhisamiyamāna), is the meaning” (Vismmhṭ 555). The word paṭicca (due to, depending on) and the word paccaya (condition) are both gerunds of paṭi + eti or ayati (to go back to).

[3]:

“The doctrine of eternalism is that beginning ‘The world and self are eternal’” (D I 14). That of no-cause is that beginning, ‘There is no cause, there is no condition, for the defilement of beings’ (D I 53). That of fictitious-cause holds that the world’s occurrence is due to Primordial Essence (prakºti), atoms (aṇu), time (kāla), and so on. That of a power-wielder asserts the existence of an Overlord (issara), or of a Worldsoul (Puruåa), or of Pajāpati (the Lord of the Race). Also the doctrines of Nature (sabhāva, Skr. svabhāva = individual essence), Fate (niyati), and Chance (yadicchā), should be regarded as included here under the doctrine of no-cause. Some, however, say that the doctrine of fictitious-cause is that beginning with ‘The eye is the cause of the eye,’ and that the doctrine of the power-wielder is that beginning, ‘Things occur owing to their own individual essence’ (see Ch. XVI, n. 23)” (Vism-mhṭ 557).

[4]:

“Such terms as ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ etc., are local forms of speech (janapada-nirutti) because even wise men, instead of saying, ‘Fetch the five aggregates,’ or ‘Let the mentality-materiality come,’ use the current forms ‘woman’ and ‘man.’ This is how, in those who have not fully understood what a physical basis is, there comes to be the insistence (misinterpretation), ‘This is really a woman, this is really a man.’ But since this is a mere concept, which depends on states made to occur in such and such wise, one who sees and knows the dependent origination does not insist on (misinterpret) it as the ultimate meaning. ‘Current speech’ is speech current in the world. ‘Not overriding’ is not going beyond. For when ‘a being’ is said, instead of making an analysis like this, ‘What is the [lasting] being here? Is it materiality? Or feeling?’ and so on, one who does not override current usage should express a worldly meaning in ordinary language as those in the world do, employing the usage current in the world” (Vism-mhṭ 557–58). The explanation differs somewhat from MN 139.