Dependent Arising

〔School of Wisdom · Public Foundation Layer〕

---

What this lesson leaves you able to do

• State the general formula of dependent arising — “when this exists, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises; when this does not exist, that does not exist; with the cessation of this, that ceases” — and know it has two doors: the forward (arising) and the reverse (cessation).
• Count the twelve links of dependent arising, and know the plain definition of each (following the discourse’s “in principle / in detail”).
• Explain why dependent arising is the root scriptural ground for “rely on the Dharma, not on a person”: dependent arising is not made by the Buddha, not set up by any person — it is a principle that abides of itself; the Buddha only awakens to it and expounds it.
• See that the inner reason for impermanence and not-self lies precisely in dependent arising — all things arise and cease through conditions, hence there is no graspable own-nature.

(This is not an exam; it is so you know where the lesson means to take you.)

Place in the arc: this lesson follows PR-101 (What Prajñā Is) and PR-110 (The Three Marks) — why the three marks are as they are (impermanent, not-self) has its reason in dependent arising. It opens onto PR-130 (The Four Noble Truths) (the forward door of dependent arising is the origin of suffering; the reverse door is its cessation), and lays the Chinese-Āgama foundation for the gated layer’s Madhyamaka dependent arising (PR-320).

---

Why study dependent arising

You have already seen the three marks — all conditioned things are impermanent, suffering, not-self (see PR-110). But perhaps a question rises in you: on what grounds do we call them impermanent and not-self? Dependent arising is the answer to that “on what grounds.”

A thing is impermanent because it is dependently arisen — it arises in dependence on many conditions; when the conditions change, it changes; when the conditions disperse, it ceases. A thing is not-self because it is dependently arisen and without own-nature — it is not an independent, self-existing “thing” that governs itself, only a momentary appearance when conditions converge. So dependent arising is not another doctrine; it is the root of the three marks: understand dependent arising, and impermanence and not-self are no longer doctrines you are asked to accept, but facts you can verify with your own eyes.

The Buddha himself held dependent arising as supremely weighty. The discourses call it “profound,” and say “to see dependent arising is to see the Dharma; to see the Dharma is to see dependent arising.” Coming this far in the School of Wisdom is to see, once and clearly, the “why” of the three marks.

---

What the Buddha said

1. The general formula and the twelve links — in principle, in detail (Saṃyukta Āgama, sutta 298)

The Buddha sets out dependent arising in two layers: the abstract formula (in principle), and the link-by-link definition (in detail).

"I will now expound dependent arising in principle and in detail. … What is dependent arising in principle? It is: when this exists, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises — that is, with ignorance as condition, formations; … and so on, the whole great mass of suffering arises. This is called dependent arising in principle." (雜阿含 T0099 fasc. 12, sutta 298)

This is the principle — the abstract general formula of dependent arising: “when this exists, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises.” No conditioned thing arises independently or of itself; all come to be, and arise, in dependence on other conditions. The twelve links are the unfolding of this formula: with ignorance as condition there are formations, with formations as condition there is consciousness … and so on to the arising of the whole great mass of suffering.

Then the detail — the Buddha defines the twelve links one by one. The discourse defines each in turn (ignorance: not knowing the prior and later bounds, not knowing the Four Truths, not knowing dependent arising …; formations: of body, of speech, of mind; consciousness: the six classes of consciousness; name-and-form: the four formless aggregates + the four great elements and derived form; the six sense-bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; contact: the six classes of contact; feeling: the three — painful, pleasant, neither; craving: the three — for sensuality, for form, for the formless; clinging: the four — to sensuality, to views, to precepts-and-observances, to a doctrine of self; existence: the three — sensual, form, formless; birth; aging-and-death). No link is an empty name; the Buddha gives each a definite content.

〔Teacher’s note〕 The twelve links need not be memorised by rote. First grasp the formula, “when this exists, that exists,” then recognise one plain chain of a human life, and that is enough: because of ignorance (not knowing as it is), various volitional activities arise (formations); from these there is consciousness, there is body-and-mind (name-and-form), there are the six faculties meeting their objects (the six bases, contact), there is feeling, there is craving, there is clinging, there is the karma of a future life (existence), there is birth, there is aging-death-sorrow-and-suffering. One link drives the next, and so “the whole great mass of suffering” arises. Understand how this chain “originates,” and you understand how it can “cease.”

2. Dependent arising is a principle that abides of itself (Saṃyukta Āgama, sutta 296)

The Buddha is especially careful to make clear: dependent arising is not something he invented; it is a principle that is so of itself.

"What are conditionally-arisen phenomena? Ignorance, formations. Whether a Buddha arises in the world or does not arise, this principle abides — the stability of the Dharma, the domain of the Dharma. The Tathāgata has himself awakened to it and fully realised it, and expounds, reveals, and discloses it to people … These phenomena: the stability of the Dharma, the emptiness of the Dharma, the suchness of the Dharma, the natural way of the Dharma — the Dharma is not apart from suchness, the Dharma is not other than suchness; investigated and true, undistorted." (雜阿含 T0099 fasc. 12, sutta 296)

The key is these lines: “whether a Buddha arises in the world or does not arise, this principle abides — the stability of the Dharma, the domain of the Dharma.” The principle of dependent arising, whether or not a Buddha appears, abides unchanging. The Buddha’s role is not to “manufacture” this principle but to “awaken to” it and “expound” it. Dependent arising “is not apart from suchness, not other than suchness; investigated and true, undistorted” — it just is the actual truth of things, neither added to nor subtracted from.

3. Dependent arising is not made by me — the scriptural ground for “rely on the Dharma, not on a person” (Saṃyukta Āgama, sutta 299)

A monk asks the Buddha directly: is dependent arising made by you, or made by someone else? The Buddha’s answer is the most direct scriptural ground for “rely on the Dharma, not on a person.”

"'Blessed One, is dependent arising made by the Blessed One, or made by someone else?' The Buddha told the monk: 'Dependent arising is not made by me, nor made by anyone else. Whether the Tathāgata arises in the world or does not, the domain of the Dharma abides; the Tathāgata has himself awakened to this principle, fully realised it, and for the sake of beings expounds, opens, and reveals it — namely: when this exists, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises — that is, with ignorance as condition, formations, and so on, the whole great mass of suffering arises; with the cessation of ignorance, formations cease, and so on, the whole great mass of suffering ceases.'" (雜阿含 T0099 fasc. 12, sutta 299)

“Dependent arising is not made by me, nor made by anyone else“ — even the Buddha says plainly that this principle is not made by him, nor by any person. The Buddha is only the awakened one: awake to this principle that is so of itself, expounding it for the sake of beings. This line sets the Dharma above all persons (the Buddha included) — and this is the very ground of this programme’s Preface, “rely on the Dharma, not on a person”: what we rely on is the Dharma, not any person (when even the Buddha does not stand as “author,” how much less the editor, the drafter, a living teacher).

This discourse also adds the reverse door: “with the cessation of ignorance, formations cease, and so on, the whole great mass of suffering ceases.” What came before was the forward door (origin): when this exists, that exists; here is the reverse door (cessation): when this does not exist, that does not exist; with the cessation of this, that ceases. Dependent arising runs both ways — followed forward, suffering originates; reversed (with ignorance cut off), suffering ceases.

---

Exposition — dependent arising: root of the three marks, bridge to the two truths

Taking the three discourses together, the full picture comes clear:

• The general formula — when this exists, that exists; with the arising of this, that arises (forward); when this does not exist, that does not exist; with the cessation of this, that ceases (reverse). All conditioned things arise and cease through conditions.
• The twelve links — the concrete unfolding of dependent arising, from ignorance to aging-and-death, showing how the “whole great mass of suffering” originates and how it ceases.
• Abiding of itself — dependent arising is not made by the Buddha, not set up by any person; it is a principle that is so of itself; the Buddha only awakens to it and expounds it.
• Both ways — the forward door is the origination of suffering (joining PR-130, the truth of origin); the reverse door is the cessation of suffering (joining PR-130, the truth of cessation).

Dependent arising is the root of the three marks: because things are dependently arisen, they are impermanent (when conditions change, they change); because they are dependently arisen and without own-nature, they are not-self (no independent, self-governing entity). PR-110 says “things are impermanent and not-self”; PR-120 says “why” — and the answer is dependent arising.

Dependent arising is also the bridge by which the School of Wisdom passes to its depths. At the gated layer, Prajñā-Madhyamaka will expound the ultimate sense of dependent arising: because dependently arisen, empty of own-nature; because empty of own-nature, dependently arisen (the two truths). But that is the matter of PR-320. The public layer first walks steadily this Chinese-Āgama foundation — the Āgama’s dependent arising: when this exists, that exists; the twelve links; abiding of itself.

〔Teacher’s note〕 “Rely on the Dharma, not on a person” has, in this programme, an unusually radical sense (see the Preface): not relying on the editor’s view, not on the drafter’s view, not on any living teacher’s personal view — relying solely on the Buddhist canon. Sutta 299’s “dependent arising is not made by me, nor by anyone else” is precisely the scriptural ground for this line — even the Buddha does not stand as “author” of the Dharma. In reading this course — and indeed any course — what you rely on is the discourse, not the one who speaks it. This is at once a humility and, more, a safety device for the transmission of the teaching.

---

Practice — how to begin 〔Public layer: attitude and a safe start〕

At this layer we speak only of how to begin, and in what spirit — not the practice of contemplating dependent arising (the contemplation of dependent arising belongs to the gated layer, undertaken with a teacher).

• First settle dependent arising as “understanding.” Before you take up any contemplation, let this sink in: all conditioned things arise and cease through conditions, without independent own-nature. Get the understanding right, and you will see the root when you look at impermanence and not-self.
• Begin by recognising the “conditions” of one thing. You need not first memorise the twelve links. Take one emotion in your life, one relationship, one outcome, and ask: on what conditions does it arise? what if the conditions change? To see, as it is, that it “comes to be through conditions and ceases through conditions” — that is the starting point of contemplating dependent arising.
• Use dependent arising to loosen “I” and “mine.” To see that a thought, a craving, is dependently arisen (has its causes, its conditions) and not something the “I” possesses inherently or governs — this seeing itself loosens grasping. But it is a natural loosening, not a forced denial. Looser is better than forced.

〔Teacher’s note〕 This lesson only establishes dependent arising as “understanding”; it does not teach its contemplation. The forward-and-reverse contemplation of the twelve links, and the direct realization of dependent arising and emptiness, are the deep country of the School of Wisdom, undertaken on the foundation of concentration and with a teacher (PR-320 onward). Text can make the principle clear; the step of seeing dependent arising directly is best taken with a teacher beside you. Nothing here rushes you. If reflecting on the round of birth-and-death stirs unease in you, that is the moment to slow down and to speak with a teacher.

---

Common pitfalls

⚠️ Misunderstanding: “Dependent arising is just karmic retribution, or fate.” Not entirely. Dependent arising states the universal law of “arising and ceasing through conditions” — it is not predestination. Precisely because things arise and cease through conditions, and the conditions can change, the reverse door is possible: cut off ignorance and formations cease, suffering can cease — this is the very ground of liberation, not the cage of fate.

⚠️ Misunderstanding: “The twelve links are a straight time-line of past life, this life, next life.” This is one traditional reading, but the core of the discourse is the conditional-dependence relation “when this exists, that exists,” whose weight is on “in dependence on conditions” — it need not first be read as a three-life straight line. The public layer first grasps the sense “arises in dependence on conditions”; the three-life reading is a later matter.

❌ What this is not: dependent arising is not a doctrine the Buddha invented. Sutta 299 says plainly: dependent arising is not made by the Buddha, not made by anyone else; it is a principle that abides of itself. The Buddha is the awakened one, the expounder — not the author.

✅ The point: dependent arising = when this exists, that exists; with the cessation of this, that ceases — with two doors, the forward (origination of suffering) and the reverse (cessation of suffering). It is the root of the three marks (dependently arisen, hence impermanent; without own-nature, hence not-self), a principle that abides of itself (the scriptural ground for “rely on the Dharma, not on a person”), and the bridge by which the School of Wisdom passes to the Four Truths and to the Madhyamaka two truths.

---

Transition — where this leads

With dependent arising standing, the three marks have their root. From here you can go on:

• To see how the forward and reverse of dependent arising are gathered into the framework of the path, see PR-130, The Four Noble Truths — suffering (the fruit of the forward), origin (the cause of the forward), cessation (the fruit of the reverse), path (the cause of the reverse). Dependent arising and the Four Truths are two ways of stating one thing.
• For the ultimate sense of dependent arising (dependently arisen, hence empty of own-nature; the two truths), that is the deep country of the School of Wisdom — Prajñā-Madhyamaka (PR-320), to be ascended in order and with a teacher. The public layer first walks the Āgama’s dependent-origination foundation steadily.

Dependent arising does not stay in twelve terms. It is the root of impermanence and not-self, the principle of the origination and cessation of suffering, the scriptural ground for “rely on the Dharma, not on a person.” You have already seen the “why” of the three marks.

---

Questions to sit with

(Not to hand in — so that the teaching settles in you.)

• Take one of your present troubles and ask: on what conditions does it arise? Which condition, if it changed, would loosen it? Seen this way, does it still look like something the “I” inherently possesses?
• “When this does not exist, that does not exist; with the cessation of this, that ceases” — the reverse door says suffering can cease. What does this give you? Hope, or another kind of pressure?
• The Buddha says “dependent arising is not made by me, nor by anyone else.” Even the Buddha does not stand as the author of the Dharma — what does this suggest to you about “whom to rely on, whom to trust”?

---

Sources

By now you should be able to return to the source texts yourself. Everything this lesson rests on has been checked against the original:

• 雜阿含 (Saṃyukta Āgama) T0099, fascicle 12, sutta 298 (in principle, in detail) · Connected on Causation · trans. Guṇabhadra, Liu-Song dynasty · Taishō vol. 2 · CBETA, public domain. The teaching core of dependent arising: in principle (the general formula, “when this exists, that exists”) + in detail (the twelve links defined one by one).
• 雜阿含 T0099, fascicle 12, sutta 296 (the principle of conditionality, conditionally-arisen phenomena) · as above · CBETA, public domain. “Whether a Buddha arises in the world or does not arise, this principle abides — the stability of the Dharma, the domain of the Dharma” — dependent arising as a principle that abides of itself.
• 雜阿含 T0099, fascicle 12, sutta 299 (dependent arising is not made) · as above · CBETA, public domain. This lesson’s “rely on the Dharma, not on a person” anchor: “dependent arising is not made by me, nor made by anyone else” + the reverse door, “with the cessation of ignorance, formations cease.”

Read it yourself: the discourses of Saṃyukta Āgama fascicle 12, Connected on Causation, are the core of the Chinese teaching on dependent arising and well worth reading — in the vault at vault-阿含/四阿含_T0099_卷012.md. Don’t take the editor’s word; read the source and see.

A note on sources (Pāli parallel): the Pāli ground for dependent arising (SN 12 Nidāna-saṃyutta) is now in the vault (vault-pali/sn_SN12.1.md Dependent Origination · sn_SN12.2.md Analysis · Mahāsaṅgīti + Sujato · CC0) for parallel reading. This lesson’s main scriptural ground remains the Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama, Connected on Causation (doctrine fully attested); the Pāli is a supplement, not cited in the body. Also, the key Indian Madhyamaka text on dependent arising, the Śālistamba (Rice Seedling Sūtra), has no match anywhere in the vault tree; it belongs to the gated layer’s Madhyamaka context (PR-320), and the public layer neither waits on it nor fills in for it.

For those who wish to go deeper: the ultimate sense of dependent arising — “because dependently arisen, empty of own-nature” (Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: “what arises through conditions, that I declare to be emptiness”) — is the Mahāyāna Madhyamaka exposition of the Āgama’s dependent arising, belonging to the gated layer, PR-320 (the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā T1564 / Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa T1509 are in the vault, but the public layer takes nothing from them verbatim). The public layer rests at the Āgama’s sense of dependent arising, “when this exists, that exists.”

---

Glossary

Term	Pāli / Skt	Sense
dependent arising	paṭiccasamuppāda	the universal law of arising and ceasing through conditions; the root of the three marks
when this exists, that exists	imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti	the general formula of dependent arising (forward door)
with the cessation of this, that ceases	imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati	the reverse door
in principle	(discourse term)	the abstract general formula of dependent arising
in detail	(discourse term)	the link-by-link definition of the twelve
the twelve links	dvādasaṅga	ignorance · formations · consciousness · name-and-form · six sense-bases · contact · feeling · craving · clinging · existence · birth · aging-and-death
the forward door	(origination)	when this exists, that exists; the origination of suffering (joins the truth of origin)
the reverse door	(cessation)	with the cessation of this, that ceases; the cessation of suffering (joins the truth of cessation)
abiding of itself	dhammaṭṭhitatā / dhammaniyāmatā	dependent arising, not made by the Buddha, a principle abiding of itself
rely on the Dharma, not on a person	(one of the four reliances)	rely on the Dharma, not on the person who teaches it; sutta 299 is its scriptural ground
without own-nature	niḥsvabhāva	dependently arisen, hence no independent self-existing entity; the principle of not-self (→ PR-320, emptiness of own-nature)

---

The Three Studies · PR-120 Dependent Arising (English edition) · Public Foundation Layer · CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · Shi Huijing