by Dalai Lama
Dependent Arising
Dependent arising48 is one of the most essential teachings of the Buddha. He expressed its overriding principle (MN 79:8):
When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.
When the causes and conditions for something are assembled, that thing will arise. The Buddha employs this principle in a variety of circumstances, including his discussion of social turmoil and social benefit. However, since the Buddha’s main concern was with sentient beings’ bondage in saṃsāra and liberation from it, one of his main teachings on conditionality is the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda). These twelve describe the causal process for rebirth in saṃsāra and the unsatisfactory experiences that ensue. They also show the way to attain liberation from this vicious cycle.
The twelve links are prominent topics for study and contemplation in both the Pāli and Sanskrit traditions. The Buddha spoke of them extensively in Pāli sūtras, especially in the Connected Discourses on Causation (Nidānasaṃyutta, SN 12), and in Sanskrit sūtras, particularly in the Rice Seedling Sūtra (Śālistamba Sūtra). An extensive explanation of dependent origination according to the Pāli tradition is found in chapter 17 of The Path of Purification as well as in Abhidharma texts. In the Sanskrit tradition extensive commentary can be found in Asaṅga’s Compendium of Knowledge (Abhidharmasamuccaya). Chapter 5 of Maitreya’s Ornament of Clear Realizations explains how to meditate on the twelve links in forward and reverse order, and chapter 3 of Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Knowledge contains the Vaibhāṣikas’ explanation of the twelve links. Chapters 24 and 26 of Nāgārjuna’s Treatise on the Middle Way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā) establish the conventional existence of the twelve links while refuting their inherent existence.
The Buddha presented dependent origination in a variety of ways. Sometimes he began with the twelfth link, aging or death, and worked backward (SN 12.2). This perspective begins with our present experience of aging and leads us to inquire as to how we arrived at it. Other times he began with ignorance and explained the links in forward order, culminating with aging or death (SN 12.1). In yet other sūtras, the Buddha began in the middle of the sequence and went either forward to aging or death or backward to ignorance (MN 11).
Although the Buddha did not explicitly teach emptiness when he taught the twelve links, he set out the basis on which we can understand it: everything that exists dependent on other factors is empty of having its own inherent nature, and everything that is empty exists dependent on other factors. Contemplating the first level of dependent arising — causal dependence — helps us to create the causes for higher rebirth by abandoning nonvirtue and practicing virtue. Contemplating a deeper level of dependent arising — dependent designation — leads us to realize emptiness and to attain liberation and awakening. Whether we seek a higher rebirth or highest goodness, understanding dependent arising is important and the teachings on it are precious.
Although the realization of the emptiness of inherent existence will free us from saṃsāra, we cannot dive into meditation on emptiness immediately. We must first eliminate coarse wrong conceptions, such as believing that our lives and our duḥkha are just random occurrences or that they arise from an external creator or from another incompatible cause. Contemplating causal dependence through the twelve links helps us to counteract these misnomers and to become familiar with dependent arising, the principal reason proving the emptiness of true existence. In the Rice Seedling Sūtra, the Buddha said:
Monastics, he who understands this rice stalk can understand the meaning of dependent arising. Those who know dependent arising know the Dharma. Those who know the Dharma know the Buddha.
Dependent arising is an abbreviation for “dependent and related arising.” In the context of the twelve links, dependent means that the arising of each link depends on the previous one. Related indicates that if one link does not exist, the next cannot arise; there is a relationship between the two links. Each set of twelve links contains the causes and results associated with one birth, although a complete set of twelve links may occur over two or three lifetimes. The twelve links are ignorance, formative actions, consciousness, name and form, six sources, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, renewed existence, birth, and aging or death. To fully understand each link, we need to understand its relation to both the link that precedes it and the link that follows it. The Buddha calls on us to contemplate: What is the origin of each link? What is its cessation? What is the path leading to that cessation?
In explaining the forward and reverse series of causation for both saṃsāra and liberation, the Buddha does not imply that any one link arises as a result of only the preceding link. Rather, a momentum builds up as the various factors augment and reinforce one another. In short, both saṃsāra and liberation depend on many interconnected causes and conditions.
How Cyclic Existence Occurs
When speaking of the twelve links, terminology is used in a specific way. For example, the link of ignorance refers to a specific instance of ignorance, not to all ignorance. The links of formative karma and consciousness refer to specific instances of these, not to all karma or all consciousnesses. Not all the types of craving and clinging described under the links of craving and clinging are instances of those two links.
The following explanation is from the Sanskrit tradition. A brief explanation of the Pāli tradition’s perspective on a link is mentioned in cases where it differs or adds a unique perspective.
1. Ignorance (avidyā)
The ignorance that is the root of saṃsāra is beginningless. The Buddha said (AN 10.61–2):
A first beginning of ignorance, monastics, cannot be discerned, of which it can be said, “Before that, there was no ignorance and it came to be after that.” Though this is so, monastics, yet a specific condition of ignorance is discerned.
Although ignorance and cyclic existence are beginningless, in the evolution of a particular lifetime, ignorance is its initial cause. There are various explanations of what this ignorance is. Some say it is obscuration; others say it actively misapprehends how the person exists. Some say it observes the aggregates and conceives them to be a self-sufficient substantially existent person; others assert that it observes the mere I and grasps it to be an inherently existent person. Some associate the view of a personal identity with ignorance; others say they are unrelated mental factors.
According to the view held in common by all tenet schools and the Pāli tradition, first-link ignorance is the lack of understanding of the four truths of the āryas and of the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena — impermanence, duḥkha, and not-self — that leads to rebirth in saṃsāra. According to the Prāsaṅgikas, it is a moment of the innate ignorance grasping the person as inherently existent that leads to rebirth in saṃsāra.49
Vasubandhu, Asaṅga, and Dharmakīrti assert that the false conception of the self regards the aggregates and believes them to be a self-sufficient substantially existent person, whereas Prāsaṅgikas assert that the view of a personal identity observes the nominally existent I — the mere I — and grasps it to be inherently existent. Owing to the difference in their assertions about first-link ignorance, these masters have different assertions regarding what the wisdom realizing selflessness apprehends.
Vasubandhu and Asaṅga agree that first-link ignorance is an unknowing, a lack of clarity. However, Vasubandhu says that ignorance grasps the opposite of proper knowledge — in this case it grasps a self-sufficient substantially existent I — whereas Asaṅga asserts that ignorance does not grasp things as existing in a way opposite to how they exist. According to Vasubandhu, ignorance is similar to seeing a coiled rope at twilight: unable to see it clearly, we misconstrue it to be a snake. In the same way, due to the obscuring force of ignorance, how the aggregates exist is not clear and we suppose them to be a self-sufficient
substantially existent person.
Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Knowledge says, “Ignorance is like an enemy or a falsehood.” An enemy is not just the lack of a friend, nor is it an unrelated object like a peach. It is the very opposite of a friend. Similarly, ignorance is not simply the lack of wisdom, nor is it an unrelated object. It is antithetical to wisdom.
Vasubandhu says that because the view of a personal identity is a form of intelligence — albeit an afflictive one — it cannot be ignorance. Ignorance accompanies the view of a personal identity, but the two are distinct mental factors. An innate affliction, ignorance is overcome only on the path of meditation, while the view of a personal identity is eliminated on the path of seeing. The primary mental consciousness that is accompanied by both ignorance and view of a personal identity has one facet that does not know the object accurately (ignorance), while simultaneously another facet apprehends the aggregates in a distorted manner and grasps them to be a self-sufficient substantially existent person (the view of a personal identity).
Asaṅga says that ignorance is like darkness that obscures seeing reality. It does not grasp the aggregates as existing in a contrary way, whereas view of a personal identity does. For this reason, he says view of a personal identity is not ignorance. He agrees that the view of a personal identity is a form of afflictive intelligence, but does not accept it as the mental factor of intelligence, because intelligence must necessarily be virtuous and the view of a personal identity is neutral.
Dharmakīrti says that the opposite of the wisdom realizing selflessness is the view of a personal identity, which he identifies with ignorance (PV). Ignorance observes the five aggregates and grasps them to be a self-sufficient substantially existent person.
Here, the antidote, wisdom, is understanding the truth, the meaning of the selflessness of persons. Its opposite is the view of a personal identity, which grasps a self of persons.50
All faults without exception arise from the afflictive view of self. That is ignorance.51
According to Prāsaṅgikas, the view of a personal identity and ignorance both grasp their object as existing inherently, and for that reason the view of a personal identity is a form of ignorance. First-link ignorance is the view of a personal identity; it is an innate self-grasping that has been present since beginningless time and gives rise to formative karma that projects a rebirth in cyclic existence. It is not acquired self-grasping that is due to familiarity with incorrect philosophies, nor is it the mental factor of ignorance, which is much broader and includes ignorance regarding karma and its effects. Ignorance grasps the inherent existence of persons and phenomena, whereas the view of a personal identity grasps the inherent existence of only our own I and mine. All beings except arhats, bodhisattvas on the eighth ground or higher, and buddhas have ignorance, but only ordinary beings — those below the path of seeing — have first-link ignorance. Āryas of the three vehicles who have not eradicated all afflictive obscurations have ignorance; however, it is not strong enough to produce karma that projects a saṃsāric rebirth and thus it is not first-link ignorance.
First-link ignorance is the specific moments of ignorance grasping inherent existence and the view of a personal identity that lie behind the motivation, performance, and completion of a virtuous or nonvirtuous karma powerful enough to project a rebirth in saṃsāra. It is not other moments of ignorance or other types of ignorance that occur in our lives. In short, first-link ignorance is the view of a personal identity that newly motivates its (that set of twelve links’) second branch, formative action. This ignorance actively grasps the self as existing in a way it does not. It is the root of saṃsāra, the principal cause of rebirth in cyclic existence.
The notion of grasping inherent existence may seem abstract to us at first, but it is our frequent experience. When intense craving arises in us, the I appears to be independent of all other factors and we apprehend it as existing in this way. “I must have this!” When anger rules our minds, the self appears very solid, as if it existed under its own power. “That disturbs me!” The I seems to be somewhere within our bodies and minds, but also separate from them. This grasping is a troublemaker; it instigates and empowers afflictions that create karma, which ripen in lower rebirths. It also instigates polluted virtuous motivations, which bring higher rebirths, but still keep us bound in saṃsāra. It is a false view because when we examine how the I exists, we see it is not our minds, our bodies, the collection of body and mind, or something apart from them. The I exists by mere designation.
Vaibhāṣikas, Sautrāntikas, Cittamātrins, and Svātantrikas say first-link ignorance grasps a self-sufficient substantially existent person. This is the root of saṃsāra that must be eliminated to attain liberation. Cittamātrins and Svātantrikas also assert self-grasping of phenomena that must be eliminated to attain full awakening. They consider this to be the ultimate root of saṃsāra. For Cittamātrins the ignorance grasping a self of phenomena that is the final root of saṃsāra holds subjects and objects to be different entities and holds phenomena to exist by their own characteristics as the referents of their names. For Svātantrikas, the final root of saṃsāra is the ignorance grasping the true existence of all phenomena.
Prāsaṅgikas identify a subtler ignorance as the root of saṃsāra — the ignorance that grasps persons and phenomena to exist inherently. The view of a personal identity that grasps the I and mine is preceded by and dependent on the ignorance grasping the aggregates as inherently existent. Nāgārjuna says (RA 35):
As long as the aggregates are grasped [as inherently existent],
so long thereby does the grasping of I exist.
Further, when the grasping of an [inherently existent] I exists,
there is [formative] action, and from it there also is birth.
Grasping the aggregates as inherently existent gives rise to grasping the I that is merely designated in dependence on them to exist inherently. Based on the view of a personal identity that grasps our I as inherently existent, we create karma that projects rebirth in saṃsāra. Ignorance afflicts transmigrating beings because it obscures seeing the right view that directly perceives the emptiness of inherent existence.
How Ignorance Leads to the Creation of Karma
The Treasury of Knowledge speaks of two motivations for an action: (1) The causal or initial motivation (hetu-samutthāna) is the first motivation to act. It may occur a long time before the action is done. (2) The immediate motivation (tatkṣaṇa-samutthāna) occurs at the time of the action. Ignorance of the ultimate nature (ignorance grasping inherent existence) is the causal motivation for all polluted karma in general and for all formative actions that project rebirth in saṃsāra in particular.
When the immediate motivation, which occurs subsequent to the causal motivation, is an affliction such as attachment, anger, jealousy, or arrogance, the formative karma will be nonvirtuous. When the immediate motivation is virtuous — such as faith, integrity, or compassion — the formative karma will be virtuous. In short, first-link ignorance and the view of a personal identity are always neutral; the virtuous or nonvirtuous mental factors that arise after them determine the ethical value of the actions that follow.
As the initial motivation, first-link ignorance is the principal driving force that leads to formative karma. Distorted conceptions may arise after it — grasping the impermanent as permanent, what is duḥkha by nature as happiness, the unattractive as attractive, and the selfless as having a coarse self. Distorted attention that exaggerates the good or bad qualities of an object may also arise. Due to these distorted conceptions, the immediate motivation such as ignorance of karma and its effects coupled with other afflictions arise. With attachment we plan, connive, and manipulate to get the objects of our desire; we then lie or steal to make them ours. When our desires are thwarted, anger arises and develops into malice. We plan and act out retaliatory actions, mistakenly believing that anger protects us. Attachment and anger in the above examples are not a distin
ct link; some sages consider them part of the first link, others say they are the second link.
The causal motivation of first-link ignorance does not necessarily lead to nonvirtuous karma. When the immediate motivation is free from the ignorance of karma and its effects and is a virtuous mental state, the subsequent action will be virtuous. Examples are making offerings with faith, protecting life with compassion, and restraining from the ten nonvirtues.
The above is the technical description of causal and immediate motivations. Another way of using these terms is broader. Here causal motivation refers to the initial virtuous, nonvirtuous, or neutral thought to do an action sometime in the future, and immediate motivation is the intention at the time of doing the action.
In this case, both the causal and immediate motivations for an action are usually virtuous, nonvirtuous, or neutral, although sometimes they may differ. As part of our practice of training in bodhicitta, upon awakening each morning we generate contrived bodhicitta: “Today I will do all actions with the aspiration to attain full awakening to benefit all sentient beings.” This is the causal motivation for all our actions that day. However, we often forget our altruistic intention, and the immediate motivation for many of our actions is attachment, animosity, jealousy, and so on. In this case, the immediate motivation determines the ethical value of the action, which is nonvirtuous. Nevertheless, generating bodhicitta in the morning is worthwhile because it lessens the strength of our destructive actions and reminds us to purify afterward. In addition, it plants seeds on our mindstreams so that one day we will have uncontrived, spontaneous bodhicitta. Sometimes the force of our compassionate motivation in the morning stays with us during the day, transforming many of our actions into virtue. High bodhisattvas’ causal and immediate motivations for all actions are the same.