Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit; Pali: paṭiccasamuppāda) is commonly translated as dependent origination or dependent arising. The term is used in the Buddhist teachings in two senses:
On a general level, it refers to one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.
On a specific level, the term is also used to refer to a specific application of this general principle—namely the twelve links of dependent origination.
The concept of pratītyasamutpāda (in both the general and specific meanings) is the basis for other key concepts in Buddhism, such as karma and rebirth, the arising of dukkha (suffering), and the possibility of liberation through realizing no-self (anatman). The general principle of pratītyasamutpāda (that everything is interdependent) is complementary to the concept of emptiness (sunyata).
Pratityasamutpada is a Sanskrit term that has been translated into English in a variety of ways. The most common translations are dependent origination or dependent arising. But the term is also translated as interdependent co-arising, conditioned arising, conditioned genesis, etc. The term could be translated somewhat more literally as arising in dependence upon conditions. The Dalai Lama explains:[1]
In Sanskrit the word for dependent-arising is pratityasamutpada. The word pratitya has three different meanings–meeting, relying, and depending–but all three, in terms of their basic import, mean dependence. Samutpada means arising. Hence, the meaning of pratityasamutpada is that which arises in dependence upon conditions, in reliance upon conditions, through the force of conditions.
The term is used in the Buddhist tradition in a general and a specific sense, namely the general principle of interdependent causation and its application in the twelve nidanas.[a] Generally speaking, in the Mahayana tradition, pratityasamutpada (Sanskrit) is used to refer to the general principle of interdependent causation, whereas in the Theravada tradition, paticcasamuppāda (Pali) is used to refer to the twelve nidanas.
The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or "dependent origination" or "dependent arising" or "interdependent co-arising") is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity.[b][c] A traditional example used in Buddhist texts is of three sticks standing upright and leaning against each other and supporting each other. If one stick is taken away, the other two will fall to the ground. Thich Nhat Hanh explains:[9]
Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.[d]
A simple formulation of the principle of pratityasamutpada is translated by Thich Nhat Hanh as follows:[9]
This is, because that is.
This is not, because that is not.
This ceases to be, because that ceases to be.
This key formula is referred to as specific conditionality or this/that conditionality (Pali: idappaccayatā; Sanskrit: idaṃpratyayatā). The formula is repeated hundreds of times throughout the sutras, and there are many translations of the formula by contemporary scholars and translators.[e] For example, contemporary translator Thanissaro Bikkhu provides the following translation:[web 3]
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Rupert Gethin explains "..the succinct formula state[s] baldly that the secret of the universe lies in the nature of causality—the way one thing leads to another."[11]
A key aspect of the principle of pratityasamutpada is that every result is dependent upon multiple causes and conditions. Rupert Gethin explains:[12]
...the Theravāda tradition records...as a fundamental axiom the principle that a single cause does not give rise to either a single result or several results; nor do several causes give rise to just one result; but rather several causes give rise to several results.[f][g][h]
The principle of dependent origination is closely related to the Four Noble Truths.[i] Contemporary scholar Peter D. Santina explains:[web 4]
What is it that the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination have in common? The principle that both have in common is the principle of causality—the law of cause and effect, of action and consequence. ...we have mentioned that the Four Noble Truths are divided into two groups. The first two—suffering and the causes of suffering, and the last two—the end of suffering and the path to the end of suffering. In both of these groups, it is the law of cause and effect that governs the relationship between the two. In other words, suffering is the effect of the cause of suffering; and similarly, the end of suffering is the effect of the path to the end of suffering. Here too in regard to dependent origination, the fundamental principle at work is that of cause and effect. In dependent origination, we have a more detailed description of what actually takes place in the causal process.
The principle of dependent origination underpins the concept of karma, which is an application of this principle to individual actions and their fruition. The Dalai Lama explains the relation between dependent origination and karma as follows:[17]
Karma is one particular instance of the natural causal laws that operate throughout the universe where, according to Buddhism, things and events come into being purely as a result of the combination of causes and conditions.
Karma, then, is an instance of the general law of causality. What makes karma unique is that it involves intentional action, and therefore an agent. The natural causal processes operating in the world cannot be termed karmic where there is no agent involved. In order for a casual process to be a karmic one, it must involve an individual whose intention would lead to a particular action. It is this specific type of causal mechanism which is known as karma.
Sogyal Rinpoche explains the subtleties of karmic action and results:[18]
In simple terms, what does karma mean? It means that whatever we do, with our body, speech, or mind, will have a corresponding result. Each action, even the smallest, is pregnant with its consequences. It is said by the masters that even a little poison can cause death and even a tiny seed can become a huge tree. And as Buddha said: “Do not overlook negative actions merely because they are small; however small a spark may be, it can burn down a haystack as big as a mountain.” Similarly he said: “Do not overlook tiny good actions, thinking they are of no benefit; even tiny drops of water in the end will fill a huge vessel.” Karma does not decay like external things, or ever become inoperative. It cannot be destroyed “by time, fire, or water.” Its power will never disappear, until it is ripened. Although the results of our actions may not have matured yet, they will inevitably ripen, given the right conditions.
As in the principle of dependent origination, within the functioning of karma, every fruition is said to depend upon multiple causes and conditions. Sogyal Rinpoche explains:[18]
The results of our actions are often delayed, even into future lifetimes; we cannot pin down one cause, because any event can be an extremely complicated mixture of many karmas ripening together.
Bhikkhu Thanissaro emphasizes the same point; he states:
...one of the many things the Buddha discovered in the course of his awakening was that causality is not linear. The experience of the present is shaped both by actions in the present and by actions in the past. Actions in the present shape both the present and the future. The results of past and present actions continually interact. Thus there is always room for new input into the system, which gives scope for free will.[j]
The principle of dependent origination also applies to the concept of no-self (anatman).[k] The concept of no-self or anatman or emptiness of self is that it is not possible to identify an independent, inherently existing self; that the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions. This theory can be broken down as follows:[21]
If you look for the self within the body, you can not find it there, since the body itself is dependent upon its parts.
If you look for the self within the mind, you can not find it there, since the mind can only be said to exist in relation to external objects; therefore the mind is also dependent upon causes and conditions outside of itself.
Hence, since the self can not be said to exist within the body or mind, it is said to be "empty of inherent existence".
In the Mahayana tradition, the principle of pratītyasamutpāda is said to complement the concept of emptiness (sunyata). It is said that because all things arise in dependence upon causes and conditions, they are empty of inherent existence.[l]
A classic expression of this relationship was provided by the renowned Indian scholar Nagarjuna in the twenty-fourth chapter of his Treatise on the Middle Way; Nagarjuna stated:[23]
Whatever arises dependently
Is explained as empty.
Thus dependent attribution
Is the middle way.
Since there is nothing whatever
That is not dependently existent,
For that reason there is nothing
Whatsoever that is not empty.
Geshe Sonam Rinchen explains the above quote as follows: "Here Nagarjuna states the Madhyamika or middle way position. Everything that exists does so dependently and everything that is dependently existent necessarily lacks independent objective existence."[23]
The Twelve Nidanas are a series of causal links that explain the process of samsaric rebirth and hence the arising dukkha, as well as the possibility to revert this process, and hence liberate oneself from samsara.[m] Within the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the twelve nidanas are considered to be the most significant application of the principle of dependent origination.
The relationship between links (nidanas) is not considered to be a linear causal process, in which each link gives rise to the next link. Rather, each link in the process arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions.[24] For example, whenever there is ignorance, craving and clinging invariably follow, and craving and clinging themselves indicate ignorance.[25]
The thrust of the formula is such that when certain conditions are present, they give rise to subsequent conditions, which in turn give rise to other conditions and the cyclical nature of life in Samsara can be seen. This is graphically illustrated in the Bhavacakra (wheel of life).
The twelve nidanas and their causal relationships can be expressed as follows:
English Terms
Sanskrit Terms
With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise
Within the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the twelve nidanas are considered to be the most significant application of the principle of dependent origination.[n]
Also in the Theravada tradition, the following key teachings on the principle of dependent origination are found in the Pali suttas:[11]
Śāriputra’s introduction to the teaching of the Buddha was in the form of the following summary verse recited to him by the monk Aśvajit: "Of those dharmas which arise from a cause, the Tathāgata has stated the cause, and also the cessation; such is the teaching of the Great Ascetic."
Idappaccayatā (translated as specific conditionality, this/that conditionality, etc.) is identified as a key expression of the doctrine of pratītyasamutpāda. Idappaccayatā is expressed through the following formula: ‘this existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing, that does not exist; this ceasing, that ceases’.(Majjhima Nikāya iii. 63; Samyutta Nikāya v. 387; etc.)
In the Madhyamaka, to say that an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that it is dependently originated. Nāgārjuna equates emptiness with dependent origination in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18.[26] In his analysis, any enduring essential nature (svabhāva) would prevent the process of dependent origination, would prevent any kind of origination at all, for things would simply always have been and will always continue to be, i.e. as existents (bhāva). Madhyamaka suggests that impermanent collections of causes and conditions are designated by mere conceptual labels, which also applies to the causes and conditions themselves and even the principle of causality itself since everything is dependently originated (i.e. empty).[27] If unaware of this, things may seem to arise as existents, remain for a time and then subsequently perish.
The Hua Yen school taught the doctrine of the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena, as expressed in Indra's net. One thing contains all other existing things, and all existing things contain that one thing. This philosophy is based in the tradition of the great Madhyamaka scholar Nagarjuna and, more specifically, on the Avatamsaka Sutra. Regarded by D.T. Suzuki as the crowning achievement of Buddhist philosophy, the Avatamsaka Sutra elaborates in great detail on the principal of dependent origination. This sutra describes a cosmos of infinite realms upon realms, mutually containing one another.
[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.
From byang chub sems bsgom pa, by Mañjusrîmitra. Primordial experience. An Introduction to rDzogs-chen Meditation, Shambhala (December 11, 2001), ISBN 978-1570628986, p. 60
In Dzogchen tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, the concept of dependent origination is considered to be complementary to the concept of emptiness. Specifically, this tradition emphasizes the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness—also known as the relative and absolute aspects of reality.[28] In this context:
Appearance (relative truth) refers to the concept that all appearances are dependently originated
Emptiness (absolute or ultimate truth) refers to the concept that the ‘’nature” of all phenomena is emptiness—lacking inherent existence.
In Mipham Rinpoche’s Beacon of Certainty, this relationship is explained using the metaphor of the reflection of the moon in water.[28] According to this metaphor:[28]
The nature of all phenomena is like the reflection of the moon in water—completely lacking inherent existence. However,
The appearance of the moon in the water is an expression of dependent origination—the appearance is completely dependent upon causes and conditions.
Anyen Rinpoche explains the significance of this understanding for a Dzogchen practitioner:[29]
We gain personal experience through meditation practice and becoming accustomed to naturally seeing appearance and emptiness in union. If we develop confidence in the nature of dependent arising, this will greatly support our personal experience of actual meditation. We could say that it is through our understanding of dependent arising that appearance and emptiness become equal.
Sogyal Rinpoche explains the dangers for a Dzogchen practitioner of misunderstanding this relationship:[30]
The Dzogchen masters are acutely aware of the dangers of confusing the absolute with the relative.[o] People who fail to understand this relationship can overlook and even disdain the relative aspects of spiritual practice and the karmic law of cause and effect. However, those who truly seize the meaning of Dzogchen will have only a deeper respect for karma, as well as a keener and more urgent appreciation of the need for purification and for spiritual practice. This is because they will understand the vastness of what it is in them that has been obscured, and so endeavor all the more fervently, and with an always fresh, natural discipline, to remove whatever stands between them and their true nature.
One of the founders of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava, emphasized his respect for this relationship as follows:[31]
Though my View is as spacious as the sky,
My actions and respect for cause and effect are as fine as grains of flour.
The Mahayana presentation of pratītyasamutpāda (and shunyata) has been compared to the scientific theory of quantum mechanics (also known as quantum physics)—the contemporary branch of physics that examines matter on atomic and subatomic levels. For example, contemporary Tibetan Buddhist teacher Mingyur Rinpoche states:[32]
In my conversations with modern scientists, I’ve been struck by a number of similarities between the principles of quantum mechanics and the Buddhist understanding of the relationship between emptiness and appearance. Because the words we used were different, it took me quite a while to recognize that we were talking about the same thing—phenomena unfolding moment by moment, caused and conditioned by an almost infinite number and variety of events.
And contemporary Western philosopher Christian Thomas Kohl states:[web 8]
There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied by quantum physics. For neither is there a fundamental core to reality, rather reality consists of systems of interacting objects. Such concepts of reality cannot be reconciled with the substantial, subjective, holistic or instrumentalistic concepts of reality which underlie modern modes of thought.
The doctrine of pratītyasamutpāda has been compared to modern systems theory. For example, in her text Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory, contemporary scholar Joanna Macy states:[33]
The systems view of reality as process, its perception of self-organizing patterns of physical and mental events, and the principals it discerned in the dynamics of these natural systems struck me as remarkably consonant with the Buddha's teachings. Like the doctrine of paticca samuppāda, systems theory sees causality as reciprocal, arising from interweaving circuits of contingency. [...] Despite the obvious contrasts in their origins and purposes, each of them—early Buddhism and contemporary systems theory—can clarify what the other is saying.
Bhikkhu Thanissaro relates the Buddhist concept of causality to modern deterministic chaos theory; he states:[34]
There are many parallels between Buddhist theories of causation and modern deterministic chaos theory. Examples and terminology drawn from the latter — such as feedback, scale invariance, resonance, and fluid turbulence — are very useful in explaining the former. Again, in using these parallels I am not trying to equate Buddhist teachings with chaos theory or to engage in pseudo-science. Fashions in science change so rapidly that we do the Buddha’s teachings no favor in trying to “prove” them in light of current scientific paradigms. Here I am simply pointing out similarities as a way of helping to make those teachings intelligible in modern terms. Deterministic chaos theory is the only modern body of knowledge that has worked out a vocabulary for the patterns of behavior described in Buddhist explanations of causality, and so it seems a natural source to draw on, both to describe those patterns and to point out some of their less obvious implications.
Western theories of the origin of the universe[edit]
The principle of pratītyasamutpāda is the basis for the Buddhist view that it is not possible to identify a beginning or origin of the world or universe. According to the Buddhist view, since all phenomena are dependent upon multiple causes and conditions, it can not be said that there was a first cause or event that sparked the creation of the universe. Thus Buddhist philosophy refutes the concepts of either a creator god or an initial event as posited in the "big bang theory". Dhammananda Maha Thera explains:[35]
Modern science says that some millions of years ago, the newly cooled earth was lifeless and that life originated in the ocean. Buddhism never claimed that the world, sun, moon, stars, wind, water, days and nights were created by a powerful god or by a Buddha. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself. According to Buddhism, world systems always appear and disappear in the universe.
Jay Garfield points out the similarities between pratītyasamutpāda and the philosophies of Hume, Kant, and others. Garfield states:[36]
The analysis of causation can often look like a highly technical aside in philosophy. It might not seem at first glance to be one of the really "big" questions, like those concerning what entities there are, what the nature of mind is, what the highest good is. By contrast, causation often appears to the outsider or to the beginner like one of those recherche corners of philosophy that one has to work one's way into. But of course even in the history of Western metaphysics and epistemology it has always been central. One has only to think of the role of a theory of causation for Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, or Wittgenstein to see this. This study of the Mulamadhyamikakarika shows why: a clear understanding of the nature of the causal relation is the key to understanding the nature of reality itself and of our relation to it. For causation is, as Hume, Kant, and Schopenhauer as well as Nagarjuna emphasize, at the heart of our individuation of objects, of our ordering of our experience of the world, and of our understanding of our own agency in the world. Without a clear view of causation, we can have no clear view of anything.
Relation to metaphysics
The concept of pratītyasamutpāda has also been compared to the Western philosophy of metaphysics (the study of the nature of being and the world). Bhikkhu Thanissaro explains that the Buddha did not intend to put forth a system of metaphysics:[37]
The Buddha was very clear on the point that he did not mean for his teachings to become a metaphysical system or for them to be adhered to simply for the sake of their truth value. He discussed metaphysical topics only when they could play a role in skillful behavior. Many metaphysical questions—such as whether or not there is a soul or self, whether or not the world is eternal, whether or not it is infinite, etc.—he refused to answer, on the grounds that they were either counterproductive or irrelevant to the task at hand: that of gaining escape from the stress and suffering inherent in time and the present.
However, scholars have noted the similarities between pratītyasamutpāda and metaphysics.[p] One source (Hoffman, 1996) asserts that pratītyasamutpāda should not be considered a metaphysical doctrine in the strictest sense, since it does confirm or deny specific entities or realities.[q][r] Noa Ronkin notes that while the Buddha suspends all views regarding certain metaphysical questions, he does not deny the significance of the questions.[s]
Radical phenomenology
Bhikkhu Thanissaro relates the Buddhist concept of karma to the modern philosophy of radical phenomenology; he states:[41]
To avoid the drawbacks of the narrative and cosmological mind-sets, the Buddha pursued an entirely different tack—what he called “entry into emptiness,” and what modern philosophy calls radical phenomenology: a focus on the events of present consciousness, in and of themselves, without reference to questions of whether there are any entities underlying those events. In the Buddha’s case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes. On the most basic level of this mode of awareness, there was no sense even of “existence” or “nonexistence”..., but simply the events of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, arising and passing away.
One of the basic ideas behind the Buddha's teaching of mutual interdependence is that ultimately there is no demarcation between what appears to be an individual creature and its environment. Harming the environment (the nexus of living beings of which one forms but a part) is thus, in a nontrivial sense, harming oneself. This philosophical position lies at the heart of modern-day deep ecology and some representatives of this movement (e.g. Joanna Macy) have shown that Buddhist philosophy provides a basis for deep ecological thinking.
^Pratītyasamutpāda has a general and specific meaning:
Donald Lopez states: "Dependent origination has two meanings in Buddhist thought. The first refers to the twelvefold sequence of causation... The second meaning of dependent origination is a more general one, the notion that everything comes into existence in dependence on something else. It is this second meaning that Nagarjuna equates with emptiness and the middle way."[2]
Peter Harvey states: "This [doctrine] states the principle of conditionality, that all things, mental and physical, arise and exist due to the presence of certain conditions, and cease once their conditions are removed: nothing (except Nibbana) is independent. The doctrine thus compliments the teaching that no permanent, independent self can be found. The main concrete application of the abstract principle is in the form of a series of conditioned links (nidanas), culminating in the arising of dukkha. A standard formula of twelve nidanas is most common..."[3]
The Nalanda Translation Committee states: "Pratitya-samutpada is the technical name for the Buddha’s teaching on cause and effect, in which he demonstrated how all situations arise through the coming together of various factors. In the hinayana, it refers in particular to the twelve nidanas, or links in the chain of samsaric becoming."[web 1]
^The general meaning of pratityasamutpada is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions:
The Dalai Lama states: "Dependent-arising is the general philosophy of all Buddhist systems even though many different interpretations are found among these systems. In Sanskrit the word for dependent-arising is pratityasamutpada. The word pratitya has three different meanings–meeting, relying, and depending–but all three, in terms of their basic import, mean dependence. Samutpada means arising. Hence, the meaning of pratityasamutpada is that which arises in dependence upon conditions, in reliance upon conditions, through the force of conditions. On a subtle level, it is explained as the main reason why phenomena are empty of inherent existence."[1]
Christina Feldman explains: What the pañicca-samuppàda actually describes is a vision of life or an understanding in which we see the way everything is interconnected—that there is nothing separate, nothing standing alone. Everything effects everything else. We are part of this system. We are part of this process of dependent origination—causal relationships effected by everything that happens around us and, in turn, effecting the kind of world that we all live in inwardly and outwardly.[web 2]
Sogyal Rinpoche states: "...all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are not independent but interdependent with all other things. The Buddha compared the universe to a vast net woven of a countless variety of brilliant jewels, each with a countless number of facets. Each jewel reflects in itself every other jewel in the net and is, in fact, one with every other jewel... Think of a tree. When you think of a tree, you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain level...it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will see that ultimately it has no independent existence. When you contemplate it, you will find that it dissolves into an extremely subtle net of relationships that stretches across the universe. The rain that falls on its leaves, the wind that sways it, the soil that nourishes and sustains it, all the seasons and the weather, moonlight and starlight and sunlight—all form part of this tree. As you begin to think about the tree more and more, you will discover that everything in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things are empty, that they have no independent existence."[4]
Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse states: "After a long time of contemplation, [Siddhartha] came to the realization that all form, including our flesh and bones, and all our emotions and all our perceptions, are assembled—they are the product of two or more things coming together. When any two components or more come together, a new phenomenon emerges—nails and wood become a table; water and leaves become tea; fear, devotion, and a savior become God. This end product doesn’t have an existence independent of its parts. Believing it truly exists independently is the greatest deception. Meanwhile the parts have undergone a change. Just by meeting, their character has changed and, together, they have become something else—they are “compounded.” [Siddhartha] realized that this applies not only to the human experience but to all matter, the entire world, the universe—because everything is interdependent, everything is subject to change. Not one component in all creation exists in an autonomous, permanent, pure state. Not the book you are holding, not atoms, not even the gods. So as long as something exists within reach of our mind, even in our imagination, such as a man with four arms, then it depends on the existence of something else."[5]
The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions states: "A key concept in Buddhism...states that all physical and mental manifestations which constitute individual appearances are interdependent and condition or affect one another, in a constant process of arising and ceasing."[6]
Nan Huai-Chin states: "Buddhist ontology points out that all relative phenomena arise and disappear through processes of cause and effect: this is called "interdependent origination" (Sanskrit: pratityasamutpada; in Chinese yuan ch'i). Accordingly, all such phenomena are dependent on the (temporary) linking of causal factors that bring them into existence and maintain them, and thus they have no stable, absolute identities independent of the web of causation. Lacking absolute independent entities they are said to be inherently empty".[7]
Paul Williams states: "In the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta the Buddha [stresses] that things originate in dependence upon causal conditioning, and this emphasis on causality describes the central feature of Buddhist ontology. All elements of samsara exist in some sense or another relative to their causes and conditions.[8]
^Pratityasamutpada can also be described as follows: that all phenomena are arising together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. When one cause changes or disappears, the resulting object or phenomenon will also change or disappear, as will the objects or phenomena depending on the changing object or phenomenon.
^Thich Nhat Hanh also refers this reality of mutual interdependence as 'Interbeing'.
^A simple formulation of the principle of pratityasamutpada that is repeated hundreds of times throughout the sutras:
Thich Nhat Hanh states: "The Buddha expressed interdependent Co-Arising very simply: "This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not. This comes to be, because that comes to be. This ceases to be, because that ceases to be." These sentences occur hundreds of times in both the Northern and Southern transmissions. They are the Buddhist genesis."[9]
Peter Harvey states: In its abstract form, the doctrine states: 'That being, this comes to be; from the arising of that, this arises; that being absent, this is not; from the cessation of that, this ceases.' (S.II.28) This states the principle of conditionality, that all things, mental and physical, arise and exist due to the presence of certain conditions, and cease once their conditions are removed: nothing (except Nibbana) is independent.[3]
Christina Feldman states: "The basic principle of dependent origination is simplicity itself. The Buddha described it by saying: 'When there is this, that is. / With the arising of this, that arises. / When this is not, neither is that. / With the cessation of this, that ceases.' When all of these cycles of feeling, thought, bodily sensation, all of these cycles of mind and body, action, and movement, are taking place upon a foundation of ignorance—that’s called samsara.[web 2]
Joseph Goldstien states: "At the heart of his teaching is the principle of dependent origination: because of this, that arises; when this ceases, that also ceases. The law of dependent origination is central to understanding not only the arising of our precious human birth, but also the unfolding process of life itself, in all its pain and beauty."[10]
Rupert Gethin: "Another succinct formula states the principle of causality (idaṃpratyayatā) as ‘this existing, that exists; this arising, that arises; this not existing, that does not exist; this ceasing, that ceases’. (Majjhima Nikāya iii. 63; Samyutta Nikāya v. 387; etc.) ...the succinct formula state[s] baldly that the secret of the universe lies in the nature of causality—the way one thing leads to another.[11]
^Endnote: Visuddhimagga xvii. 105–7; Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā 147–8. For the Sarvāstivādin understanding of types of condition, see Abhidhar-makośa ii. 60–73.
^Gethin also explains: "I said above that the formula of dependent arising is intended to reveal the actual pattern and structure of causality. Buddhist thought does not understand causality in terms similar to, say, Newtonian mechanics, where billiard balls rebound off each other in an entirely predictable manner once the relevant information is gathered."[12]
^The doctrine of dependent origination is closely related to the Four Noble Truths, in particular, the Second Noble Truth:
Peter D. Santina states: "On the basis of the Buddha’s own statements, we can see a very close relationship between the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination. What is it that the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination have in common? The principle that both have in common is the principle of causality—the law of cause and effect, of action and consequence."[web 4]
Christina Feldman states: "In the Buddha’s teachings, the second noble truth is not a theory about what happens to somebody else, but is a process which is going on over and over again in our own lives—through all our days, and countless times every single day. This process in Pali is called pañicca-samuppàda, sometimes translated as "dependent origination" or "co-dependent origination" or "causal interdependence.""[web 2]
Bhikkhu Thanissaro relates pañicca-samuppàda to the second and third noble truths; he states: "...dependent co-arising works as an explanation both for the arising of dukkha—stress or suffering—and for the fact that dukkha can be ended through a path of practice."[13]
Rupert Gethin explains: "Dependent arising is to be understood as in certain respects an elaboration of the truth of the origin of suffering..."[14]
The Dalai Lama states: "In the Buddha's root teaching on the four noble truths, there are two sets of cause and effect: one set for the afflicted class of phenomena [suffering and its causes] and another for the pure class [cessation and its causes]."[15]
Chogyam Trungpa states: "The four noble truths are divided into two sections. The first two truths—the truth of suffering and the origin of suffering—are studies of the samsaric version of ourselves and the reasons we arrived in certain situations or came to particular conclusions about ourselves. The second two truths—the truth of cessation and the truth of the path—are studies of how we could go beyond or overcome it. [...] Suffering is regarded as the result of samsara, and the origin of suffering is regarded as the cause of samsara. The path is regarded as the cause of nirvana, and cessation of suffering as the result.[16]
^Bhikkhu Thanissaro emphasizes that causality is not a linear process.[web 5]
^Dependent origination applies to the concept of no-self:
Joseph Goldstein states: "Everything arises from conditions, and in seeing this contingent arising, we see the emptiness of self in the process."[19]
Thanissaro Bhikkhu states: "...taking up the teaching of not-self, shows how dependent co-arising gives focus to this teaching in practice."[web 6]
Lama Zopa Rinpoche states: If the I really were in a particular location in your body or in your mind, as you feel it to be, it would mean the I is truly existent.In that case there would be no way you could use the logic of dependent arising because it wouldn’t be a dependent arising. In other words, if there were an I located somewhere in the body, in the mind or in the association of both the body and mind, if the I that appears to us were true, it would mean that the I is truly existent. If the I were able to be found somewhere, it would mean that it is truly existent. If the I were truly existent there would be no way to apply the logic of dependent arising to it because it wouldn’t exist in that way.[20]
^In the Mahayana tradition, the principle of pratītyasamutpāda is said to complement the concept of emptiness (sunyata):
The Dalai Lama states: "...the meaning of pratityasamutpada is that which arises in dependence upon conditions, in reliance upon conditions, through the force of conditions. On a subtle level, it is explained as the main reason why phenomena are empty of inherent existence."[1]
Sogyal Rinpoche states: "...all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are not independent but interdependent with all other things... Think of a tree. When you think of a tree, you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain level...it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will see that ultimately it has no independent existence... As you begin to think about the tree more and more, you will discover that everything in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things are empty, that they have no independent existence."[4]
Nan Huai-Chin states: "Buddhist ontology points out that all relative phenomena arise and disappear through processes of cause and effect: this is called "interdependent origination" (Sanskrit: pratityasamutpada; in Chinese yuan ch'i). Accordingly, all such phenomena are dependent on the (temporary) linking of causal factors that bring them into existence and maintain them, and thus they have no stable, absolute identities independent of the web of causation. Lacking absolute independent entities they are said to be inherently empty".[7]
Jay Garfield states: "That all phenomena are dependently originated is the heart of the Buddhist ontological theory."[22]
^The twelve nidandas are the most significant application in the Theravada tradition:
Rupert Gethin states: "But the most important statement of the Buddhist understanding of how causality operates is in terms of the twelve links (nidāna) of the chain of ‘dependent arising’ (pratītya-samutpāda/paṭicca-samuppāda)."[11]
^Note that in this context the terms absolute and relative refer to absolute truth (emptiness) and relative truth (appearances arise due to dependent origination).
^Schilbrack states: "Is the doctrine of interdependent origination a metaphysical teaching? The answer depends on one's definition of metaphysics. In this paper, metaphysics describes the character that anything has insofar as it is anything at all. Interdependent origination seems to fit this description."[38]
^Hoffman states: "Suffice it to emphasize that the doctrine of dependent origination is not a metaphysical doctrine, in the sense that it does not affirm or deny some super-sensible entities or realities; rather, it is a proposition arrived at through an examination and analysis of the world of phenomena ..."[39]
^This suggests that pratītyasamutpāda might be considered a metaphysic of volitions (or karma). A small part of metaphysics deals with the apparent contradiction, or paradox, between free will, and the position that worldly phenomena are solely a consequence of natural causal factors. Determinists argue that everything is completely deterministic, based on natural causal laws that can never be changed; Libertarians argue that everything is totally up to one's free will, and compatibilists posit a compatibility of these two positions.
^Noa Ronkin states: "Nevertheless, while it is true that the Buddha suspends all views regarding certain metaphysical questions, he is not an antimetaphysician: nothing in the texts suggests that metaphysical questions are completely meaningless, or that the Buddha denies the soundness of metaphysics per se [...] A framework of thought that hinges on the idea that sentient experience is dependently originated and that whatever is dependently originated is conditioned (sankhata), impermanent, subject to change, and lacking independent selfhood"[40]
Anyen Rinpoche (2012), Journey to Certainty, Wisdom Publications
Bhikkhu Bodhi (2005), In the Buddha's Words, Wisdom Publications
Bhikkhu Bodhi (translator) (2000), The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications, ISBN0-86171-331-1
Bhikkhu Nanamoli (translator) (1995), The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications, ISBN0-86171-072-X
Gethin, Rupert (1998), Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford University Press
Goldstein, Joseph (2002), One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism, HarperCollins
Harvey, Peter (1990), An Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge University Press
Hoffman, Frank J., et al (1996), Pāli Buddhism, Routledge
Lama Zopa Rinpoche (2009), How Things Exist: Teachings on Emptiness, Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive, Kindle Edition
Lopez, Donald S. (2001), The Story of Buddhism, HarperCollins
Mabja Tsondru (2011), Ornament of Reason, Snow Lion
Macy, Joanna (1991), Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems, SUNY
Mattis-Namgyel (2010), The Power of an Open Question: The Buddha's Path to Freedom, Shambhala
Mingyur Rinpoche (2007), The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness, Harmony Kindle Edition
Nan Huai-Chin, J.C. Cleary (trans.) (1994), To Realize Enlightenment: Practice of the Cultivation Path, Weiser Books
Ronkin, Noa (2009), "Theravada Metaphysics and Ontology", Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings (Edelglass, et al, editors)[2] (Oxford University Press), ISBN978-0-19-532817-2
Schilbrack, Kevin (2002), Thinking through Myths: Philosophical Perspectives, Routledge, ISBN0-415-25461-2
Smith, Huston; Novak, Philip (2009), Buddhism: A Concise Introduction, HarperOne, Kindle Edition
Sogyal Rinpoche (2009), The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Harper Collins, Kindle Edition
Thich Nhat Hanh (1991), Old Path White Clouds, Parallax Press
Thich Nhat Hanh (1999), The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, Three River Press
Williams, Paul (2002), Buddhist Thought, Taylor & Francis, Kindle Edition
Walpola Rahula (2007), What the Buddha Taught, Grove Press, Kindle Edition
