There are numerous interpretations of the doctrine of dependent origination across the different Buddhist traditions and within them as well. Various systematizations of the doctrine were developed by the
Abhidharma traditions which arose after the death of the Buddha. Modern scholars have also interpreted the teaching in different ways. According to
Ajahn Brahm, a fully correct understanding of dependent origination can only be known by awakened being or
ariyas. Brahm notes that "this goes a long way to answering the question why there is so much difference of opinion on the meaning of dependent origination." Collett Cox writes that the majority of scholarly investigations of dependent origination adopt two main interpretations of dependent origination, they either see it as "a generalized and logical principle of abstract conditioning applicable to all phenomena" or they see it as a "descriptive model for the operation of action (karman) and the process of rebirth."
Conditionality The general principle of conditionality is expressed in numerous early sources as "When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; This ceasing, that ceases." According to
Rupert Gethin, this basic principle is neither a direct Newtonian-like causality nor a singular form of
causality. Rather, it asserts an indirect and plural conditionality which is somewhat different from classic European views on causation. The Buddhist concept of dependence is referring to conditions created by a plurality of causes that necessarily co-originate phenomena within and across lifetimes, such as karma in one life creating conditions that lead to rebirth in a certain realm of existence for another lifetime.
Bhikkhu Bodhi writes that the Buddhist principle of conditionality "shows that the "texture" of being is through and through relational." However, according to Harvey and Brahm, while the 12 nidanas are necessary conditions for each other, not all of them are necessary
and sufficient conditions (some are, some are not). As Harvey notes, if this was the case, "when a buddha or arahat experienced feeling they would inevitably experience craving" (but they do not). As such, feeling is only one of the conditions for craving (another one is ignorance). Therefore, in this Buddhist view of causality, nothing has a single cause.
Abhidharma views of conditionality The Buddhist
abhidharma traditions developed a more complex schematization of conditionality than that found in the early sources. These systems outlined different kinds of conditional relationships. According to
K.L. Dhammajoti,
vaibhāṣika abhidharma developed two major schemes to explain conditional relations: the four conditions (
pratyaya) and the six causes (
hetu). The vaibhāṣika system also defended a theory of simultaneous causation. While simultaneous causation was rejected by the sautrāntika school, it was later adopted by
yogācāra. The Theravāda abhidhamma also developed a complex analysis of conditional relations, which can be found in the
Paṭṭhāna. A key element of this system is that nothing arises from a single cause or as a solitary phenomenon, instead there are always a plurality of conditions giving rise to clusters of dhammas (phenomena).
Conditioned or unconditioned? As a result of their doctrinal development, the various sectarian Buddhist schools eventually became divided over the question of whether or not the very principle of dependent origination was itself conditioned (saṃskṛta) or unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). This debate also included other terms such as "stability of dharma" (dharmasthititā) and "suchness" (tathatā), which were not always seen as synonymous with "dependent origination" by all schools. Understood in this way, dependent origination has no place for a creator God nor the ontological Vedic concept called universal Self (
Brahman) nor any other 'transcendent creative principle'. In this worldview, there is no
'first cause' from which all beings arose, instead, every thing arises in dependence on something else. Bhikkhu Bodhi affirms the centrality of rebirth for dependent origination. Bodhi writes that "the primary purpose, as seen in the most archaic Buddhist texts, is to show the causal origination of suffering, which is sustained precisely by our bondage to rebirth." Ajahn Brahm agrees, writing that the main purpose of dependent origination is to explain "how there can be rebirth without a soul" and "why there is suffering, and where suffering comes to an end." Brahm cites the definitions of the nidanas in the
Vibhaṅgasutta (SN 12.2) which clearly indicate that
birth and
death is meant literally. Bhikkhu Analayo writes that "dependent arising is the other side of the coin of emptiness, in the sense of the absence of a substantial and unchanging entity anywhere in subjective experience. Experience or existence is nothing but conditions. This leaves no room for positing a self of any type." As an expository device, the commentarial traditions of the Theravāda,
sarvāstivāda-
vaibhasika and
sautrantika schools defended an interpretation which saw the 12 factors as a sequence that spanned three lives. It is also defended by the Theravāda scholar
Buddhaghosa (c. fifth century CE) in his influential
Visuddhimagga (Vism.578–8I) and it became standard in Theravada. The three-lives model, with its "embryological" interpretation which links dependent origination with rebirth was also promoted by the Sarvāstivāda school as evidenced by the
Abhidharmakosa (AKB.III.21–4) of
Vasubandhu (
fl. 4th to 5th century CE) and the
Jñanaprasthana. Furthermore, Bodhi argues that these twelve causes are not something hidden, but are "the fundamental pattern of experience" which "always present, always potentially accessible to our awareness." Furthermore, according to Payutto, there is material in the
Vibhaṅga which discusses both models, the three lifetimes model (at Vibh.147) and the one mind moment model. Similarly, Cox notes that the Sarvastivadin
Vijñānakāya contains two interpretations of dependent origination, one which explains the 12 nidanas as functioning in a single moment as a way to account for ordinary experience and another interpretation that understands the 12 nidanas as arising sequentially, emphasizing their role in the functioning of rebirth and karma. • Prolonged – The interdependence and causal relationship of dharmas is seen as arising at different times (across three lifetimes). • Serial – The causal relationship of the twelve links arising and ceasing in a continuous
series of mind moments.
Modern interpretations The interpretation of dependent origination as mainly referring to mental processes has been defended by various modern scholars such as Eviatar Shulman and Collett Cox. Eviatar Shulman argues that dependent origination only addresses "the way the mind functions in samsara, the processes of mental conditioning that transmigration consists of." He further argues that it "should be understood to be no more than an inquiry into the nature of the self (or better, the lack of a self)." Shulman grants that there are some ontological implications that may be gleaned from dependent origination. However, he argues that at its core dependent origination is concerned with "identifying the different processes of mental conditioning and describing their relations". For Shulman, dependent origination does not "deal with how things exist, but with the processes by which the mind operates." Shulman argues that the general principle of dependent origination deals exclusively with the processes outlined in the lists of nidanas (not with existence per se, and certainly not with all objects). Shulman writes that seeing dependent origination as referring to the nature of reality in general "means investing the words of the earlier teachings with meanings derived from later Buddhist discourse" which leads to a misrepresentation of early Buddhism. Sue Hamilton presents a similar interpretation which sees dependent origination as showing how all things and indeed our entire "world" (of experience) are dependently originated through our cognitive apparatus. As such, Hamilton argues that the focus of this teaching is on our subjective experience, not on anything external to it. Collett Cox also sees the theory of dependent origination found in the early Buddhist sources as an analysis of how suffering is produced in our experience. Cox states that it is only in later Abhidharma literature that dependent origination became an abstract theory of causation. A similar interpretation has been put forth by Bhikkhu
Buddhadasa who argues that, in the list of the twelve nidanas,
jati and
jaramarana refer not to rebirth and physical death, but to the birth and death of our self-concept, the "emergence of the ego". According to Buddhadhasa,
Ñāṇavīra Thera is another modern Theravada Bhikkhu known for rejecting the traditional interpretation and instead explaining the 12 links as a structural schema which does not happen in successive moments in time, but is instead a timeless structure of experience. This sutra introduced the well-known Mahayana simile of a rice seed and its sprout as a way to explain conditionality. It also contains the influential passage: "He who sees dependent arising sees the dharma. He who sees the dharma sees the Buddha." Numerous commentaries were written on this sutra, some of which are attributed to
Nāgārjuna (but this is questionable). Perhaps the earliest of these sutras, the
Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, contains a passage which describes the suchness (
tathatā) of dharmas using various terms including shūnyatā, cessation (
nirodha) and unarisen (
anutpāda). Most famously, the
Heart Sutra states:Sariputra, in that way, all phenomena are empty, that is, without characteristic, unproduced, unceased, stainless, not stainless, undiminished, unfilled.The
Heart Sutra also negates the 12 links of dependent origination: "There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, up to and including no aging and death and no extinction of aging and death." Some Mahāyāna sūtras present the insight into the non-arisen nature of dharmas as a great achievement of bodhisattvas. The
Amitāyurdhyāna Sūtra mentions that Vaidehi had, on listening to the teaching in this sutra, attained "great awakening with clarity of mind and reached the insight into the non-arising of all dharmas." Similarly, the
Vimalakirti sutra mentions various bodhisattvas (including Vimalakirti) that have attained "the forbearance of the nonarising of dharmas." The
Lotus Sutra states that when the "thought of the highest path" arises in sentient beings "they will become convinced of the nonarising of all dharmas and reside in the stage of non-retrogression." The
Samdhinirmochana Sutra'
s chapter 7 mentions a teaching which states: "All phenomena are without an essence, unborn, unceasing, primordially in the state of peace, and naturally in the state of nirvāṇa." However, it states that this teaching is that of the "discourses of provisional meaning", and that it should be taught along with the teachings of the
third turning of the wheel of Dharma. Similarly, the
Lankavatara sutra explains the doctrine of the unborn and unoriginated nature of dharmas through the idealistic philosophy of mind-only. Since all things are illusory manifestations of the mind, they do not really originate or arise.
Madhyamaka In
madhyamaka philosophy, to say that an object dependently originated is synonymous with saying that it is "empty" (
shunya). This is directly stated by Nāgārjuna in his
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK): 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. – MMK, Ch. 24.18–19According to Nāgārjuna, all phenomena (
dharmas) are empty of
svabhāva (variously translated as essence, intrinsic nature, inherent existence, and own being) which refers to a self-sustaining, causally independent and permanent identity. Nāgārjuna's philosophical works analyze all phenomena in order to show that nothing at all can exist independently, and yet, they are also not non-existent since they exist conventionally, i.e. as empty dependent arisings. The first chapter of the MMK focuses on the general idea of causation and attempts to show how it is a process that is empty of any essence. According to
Jay Garfield, in the first chapter, Nāgārjuna argues against a reified view of causality which sees dependent origination in terms of substantial powers (
kriyā) of causation (
hetu) that phenomena have as part of their intrinsic nature (
svabhāva). Instead, Nāgārjuna sees dependent origination as a series of conditional relationships (
pratyaya) that are merely nominal designations and "explanatorily useful regularities". Westerhoff further argues that for Nāgārjuna, causes and effects are both dependent on one another (conceptually and existentially) and neither one can exist independently. As such, he rejects four ways that something could be causally produced: by itself, by something else, by both, by nothing at all. Westerhoff also notes that for Nāgārjuna, cause and effect do not exist objectively, that is to say, they are not independent of a cognizing subject. As such, cause and effect are "not just mutually interdependent, but also mind-dependent." This means that for Nāgārjuna, causality and causally constructed objects are ultimately just conceptual constructs. Nāgārjuna applies a similar analysis to numerous other kinds of phenomena in the MMK such as motion, the self, and time. Chapter 7 of the MMK attempts to argue against the idea that dependent arising exists either as a conditioned entity or as an unconditioned one. Rejecting both options, Nāgārjuna ends this chapter by stating that dependent arising is like an
illusion, a
dream or a city of
gandharvas (a stock example for a
mirage). Chapter 20 tackles the question of whether an assemblage of causes and conditions can produce an effect (it is argued that it cannot). This analysis of dependent arising therefore means that
emptiness itself is empty. As Jay Garfield explains, this means that emptiness (and thus dependent origination) "is not a self-existent void standing behind the veil of illusion represented by conventional reality, but merely an aspect of conventional reality." In this schema, the constructed or fabricated nature is an illusory appearance (of a dualistic self), while the "dependent nature" refers specifically to the process of dependent origination or as Jonathan Gold puts it "the causal story that brings about this seeming self." Furthermore, as Gold notes, in Yogacara, "this causal story is entirely mental," and so our body, sense bases and so on are illusory appearances. Indeed, D.W. Mitchell writes that
yogācāra sees consciousness as "the causal force" behind dependent arising. Dependent origination is therefore "the causal series according to which the mental seeds planted by previous deeds ripen into the appearance of the sense bases". The three poisons (greed, hatred and delusion) sit at the very center of wheel. Tibetan Buddhist scholars rely on the north Indian works of scholars such as Asanga, Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna in their interpretation of the 12 nidanas. For example, according to Wayman,
Tsongkhapa, attempted to harmonize the presentations of the 12 links found in Nagarjuna and in Asanga. The
Gelug school which follows
Tsongkhapa's thought rejects this view, and instead holds that all phenomena are said to lack
inherent existence (
svabhava) and thus, everything is empty and dependently originated. Other Tibetan madhyamakas like
Gorampa argue for a more
anti-realist view, negating the very existence of all phenomena and seeing them all as illusions. Meanwhile, scholars of the
Nyingma school such as
Ju Mipham have also attempted to interpret orthodox madhyamaka in a way that is compatible with the view of
dzogchen.
Interdependence The
Huayan school taught the doctrine of the
mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena (
yuánróng, 圓融), as expressed in the metaphor of
Indra's net. One thing contains all other existing things, and all existing things contain that one thing. This philosophy is based on the
Avatamsaka Sutra and the writings of the patriarchs of Huayan.
Thích Nhất Hạnh explains this concept as follows: "You cannot just be by yourself alone. You have to inter-be with every other thing." He uses the example of a sheet of paper that can only exist due to every other cause and condition (sunshine, rain, trees, people, the mind etc). According to Hanh "this sheet of paper is, because everything else is."
Sogyal Rinpoche states all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are not independent but interdependent with all other things. A tree, for example, cannot be isolated from anything else. It has no independent existence. According to Richard Gombrich, the East Asian interpretation of dependent origination as the idea that "all phenomena exert causal influence on each other" does not follow from the early Buddhist understanding of dependent origination. He further argues that this interpretation "would subvert the Buddha's teaching of karma." This is because "if we were heirs of other people's deeds, the whole moral edifice would collapse." ==Comparison with western philosophy==