The theory of Dependent Origination is the essence of Buddha dharma. However, Depend Origination is very profound and hard to penetrate. From ancient time until today, there have been many discussions in sutras, vinayas, and sastras. Contemporary scholars do the same. The leading Buddhist scholar of modern Japan Ui-Hakuju(宇井伯壽)translated the term "idappaccayate" as "inter-dependence". He also interpreted the theory of Dependent Origination in primitive Buddhist sutras as "inter-dependence" by quoting the sentences in sutras："With consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality. With mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness." Henceforth, in Japanese academic circle, some agreed with him while the others didn't. After several decades, it is still under discussion without definite conclusion. The author is lucky enough to read Masuda-Hideo's(增田英男)article entitled "Dependent Origination and Voidness".He attempts to comment on "the theory of voidness with dependent origination as its cause", "dependent origination as inter-dependence", "because of inter-dependence, all existences have no real essence" as the modern interpretation. Masuda-Hideo traces the primitive theory of dependent origination to examine this subject. He has outstanding views everywhere.However, some of his views differ from mine or need elaboration.As regards the theory of dependent origination in primitive Buddhism, Ui-Hakuju is the first one to translate the term "idappaccayata" as "inter-dependence". He thus guides many followers to join the discussion of "dependent origination and inter-dependence." Of course, some scholars echo with different opinions. I will express my humble views to comment on Masuda-Hideo's comment and Mitsuyoshi Saigusa's(三枝充惪) evaluation.Firstly, I will review the various theories of dependent origination. Secondly, I will comment on themistake of interpreting dependent origination as inter-dependence. I opine that "idappaccayata" should be understood as "relatedness" of states", and"regularity of states." I also suggest that we should try to understand "idappaccayata" through the law of"dependent origination", and to penetrate"idappaccayata" through reality, not unreality, and not otherness. Last part is the conclusion.
