Pratītyasamutpāda
Pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, Pāli: paṭiccasamuppāda), commonly translated as dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a key doctrine in Buddhism shared by all schools of Buddhism.[1][note 1] It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.
Translations of
pratītyasamutpāda/paṭiccasamuppāda
dependent origination,
dependent arising,
interdependent co-arising,
conditioned arising
प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद
(IAST: pratītyasamutpāda)
पटिच्चसमुप्पाद (paṭiccasamuppāda)
প্রতীত্যসমুৎপাদ
(prôtīttôsômutpad)
ပဋိစ္စ သမုပ္ပါဒ်
IPA: [bədeiʔsa̰ θəmouʔpaʔ]
緣起
(Pinyin: yuánqǐ)
縁起
(Rōmaji: engi)
បដិច្ចសមុប្បាទ
(padecchak samubbat)
연기
(RR: yeongi)
Platityasamutpada
ปฏิจจสมุปบาท
(RTGS: patitcha samupabat)
duyên khởi
(Chữ Nôm: 縁起)
The doctrine includes depictions of the arising of suffering (anuloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "with the grain", forward conditionality) and depictions of how the chain can be reversed (paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda, "against the grain", reverse conditionality).[2][3] These processes are expressed in various lists of dependently originated phenomena, the most well-known of which is the twelve links or nidānas (Pāli: dvādasanidānāni, Sanskrit: dvādaśanidānāni). The traditional interpretation of these lists is that they describe the process of a sentient being's rebirth in saṃsāra, and the resultant duḥkha (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness),[4] and they provide an analysis of rebirth and suffering that avoids positing an atman (unchanging self or eternal soul).[5][6] The reversal of the causal chain is explained as leading to the cessation of rebirth (and thus, the cessation of suffering).[4][7]
Another interpretation regards the lists as describing the arising of mental processes and the resultant notion of "I" and "mine" that leads to grasping and suffering.[8][9] Several modern western scholars argue that there are inconsistencies in the list of twelve links, and regard it to be a later synthesis of several older lists and elements, some of which can be traced to the Vedas.[9][10][11][12][13][5]
The doctrine of dependent origination appears throughout the early Buddhist texts. It is the main topic of the Nidana Samyutta of the Theravada school's Saṃyuttanikāya (henceforth SN). A parallel collection of discourses also exists in the Chinese Saṁyuktāgama (henceforth SA).[14]
Dependent origination is a philosophically complex concept, subject to a large variety of explanations and interpretations. As the interpretations often involve specific aspects of dependent origination, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive to each other.
Dependent origination can be contrasted with the classic Western concept of causation in which an action by one thing is said to cause a change in another thing. Dependent origination instead views the change as being caused by many factors, not just one or even a few.[15]
The principle of dependent origination has a variety of philosophical implications.
Pratītyasamutpāda consists of two terms:
Pratītyasamutpāda has been translated into English as dependent origination, dependent arising, interdependent co-arising, conditioned arising, and conditioned genesis.[31][16][note 3]
Jeffrey Hopkins notes that terms synonymous to pratītyasamutpāda are apekṣasamutpāda and prāpyasamutpāda.[37]
The term may also refer to the twelve nidānas, Pali: dvādasanidānāni, Sanskrit: dvādaśanidānāni, from dvādaśa ("twelve") + nidānāni (plural of "nidāna", "cause, motivation, link").[quote 2] 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 nidānas.
Dependent origination in early Buddhism[edit]
The principle of conditionality[edit]
In the early Buddhist texts, the basic principle of conditionality is called by different names such as "the certainty (or law) of dhamma" (dhammaniyāmatā), "suchness of dharma" (法如; *dharmatathatā), the "enduring principle" (ṭhitā dhātu), "specific conditionality" (idappaccayatā) and "dhammic nature" (法爾; dhammatā).[24] This principle is expressed in its most general form as follows:[3][39][40][note 4]
Lists of nidanas[edit]
The twelve nidanas[edit]
The popular listing of twelve nidānas is found in numerous sources. In some of the early texts, the nidānas themselves are defined and subjected to analysis (vibhaṅga). The explanations of the nidānas can be found in the Pali SN 12.2 (Vibhaṅga "Analysis" sutta) and in its parallel at SA 298.[77] Further parallels to SN 12.2 can be found at EA 49.5, some Sanskrit parallels such as the Pratītyasamutpādādivibhaṅganirdeśanāmasūtra (The Discourse giving the Explanation and Analysis of Conditional Origination from the Beginning) and a Tibetan translation of this Sanskrit text at Toh 211.[78][79][80]
Comparison with western philosophy[edit]
The concept of pratītyasamutpāda has also been compared to Western metaphysics, the study of reality. Schilbrack states that the doctrine of interdependent origination seems to fit the definition of a metaphysical teaching, by questioning whether there is anything at all.[243] Hoffman disagrees, and asserts that pratītyasamutpāda should not be considered a metaphysical doctrine in the strictest sense, since it does not confirm nor deny specific entities or realities.[quote 3]
The Hellenistic philosophy of Pyrrhonism parallels the Buddhist view of dependent origination, as it does in many other matters (see: similarities between Phyrrhonism and Buddhism).[245][246][247] Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights describes how appearances are produced by relative interactions between mind and body and how there are no self-dependent things.[248] The ancient Commentary on Plato's Theaetetus also defends a kind of relativism which states that nothing has its own intrinsic character.[249]
Jay L. Garfield states that Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika uses the causal relation to understand the nature of reality, and of our relation to it. This attempt is similar to the use of causation by Hume, Kant, and Schopenhauer as they present their arguments. Nagarjuna uses causation to present his arguments on how one individualizes objects, orders one's experience of the world, and understands agency in the world.[33]
Educational Resources