user8157: SN 22.82 and MN 109 state:

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause (hetu) and condition (paccayo) for the manifestation (paññāpanāya) of the form (rupa) aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate.
Nāmarūpaṃ is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

Paññāpanāya: This might have been rendered "for the description of the form aggregate". Paññāpanā is literally "making known" and something is "made known" either by becoming manifest or by being described. Footnote: Bhikkhu Bodi 


Dependent origination states:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition (paccaya) come formations (sankhara). From formations as
  a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
  requisite condition comes nāmarūpaṃ. From nāmarūpaṃ as a requisite
  condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
  requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
  condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
  craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a
  requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition,
  then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair
  come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress
  & suffering.

In addition, Dependent Origination defines nāmarūpaṃ as:

Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention — these are called nāma. The four great elements and the material form derived
  from the four great elements — these are called rūpa.

Obviously, there appear to many contradictions between SN 22.82 and Dependant Origination, which include:

Rupa caused (hetu) by elements vs rupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness
Sankhara caused (hetu) by contact vs sankhara conditioned (paccaya) by ignorance. 
Feeling, perception & intention caused (hetu) by contact vs contact conditioned (paccaya) by sense media conditioned (paccaya) by feeling, perception & intention (nāma). 
Consciousness caused (hetu) by namarupa vs namarupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness. 

Is there a contradiction here? Why is this so? How is this resolved? 

user11762: It's a sublime Dharma, hard to understand, so let's examine some analogies.
Modern physics says that there are electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves and visible light. We can imagine them as some surface where waves spread from the center:

We can understand them by analogy with ocean waves:

But there is a big difference: waves in the ocean have water beneath and wind above. So the surface is "material".
Electromagnetic waves, however, don't have anything beneath and anything above. It's an imaginary surface.
Now let us examine what is consciousness. We often imagine it as a result of contact of two things:

an organ of perception
and something that influences that organ of perception.

Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.
It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).
We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.
Usually we imagine consciousness as some space that exists independently of everything else; when things appear in that space, they become perceived.
But Dharma asks us: are we sure that there is that immutable, metaphysical space called Consciousness?
We only know directly that consciousness appears when there is contact of organ and object. Does consciousness really exist apart from that?
If we examine that question, we can conclude that there is no actual reason to claim that consciousness exists constantly and independently; it's just our mental model.
Though we can speak about the reality as Only Consciousness (and sometimes it's useful), that is just our modeling; in direct perception Consciousness doesn't really exist (as something absolute or independent).
That helps to realize emptiness - no self - of all things and objects.
Actually all objects are our mental models we create from fluid momentary appearances.
Objects do not exist in themselves. They are only our way to associate individual sense data.
Then we can make another step and say that "objects of perception" and "organs of perception" are in fact our mental models.
The primary phenomena are momentary appearances. "Waves of consciousness".
It's like there are waves, like electromagnetic waves, but we imagine them as ocean waves, with something beneath and something above. In fact, for direct observation something appears. And then we build some mental models on top of that - adding there dualities, like "object" and "organ", or "mind" and "matter".
Consider this: looking at sea, we see waves, and we conclude that there is water beneath and wind above.
Likewise, from "consciousness" we conclude there are forms and mentations of them (rupa & nama).
So various explanations are possible: that from nama-rupa consciousness appears, and that from consciousness nama-rupa appear.
In both cases we talk about the process of creation of mental models.
Awakening and liberation from delusion means we drop thinking of mental models as real things.
It's very sublime Dharma, very hard to understand without direct contemplation.

user8044: When you have questions of this kind, it is good to refer to the next two levels of Dhamma. One can always find the correct meanings to the key words that come up in reading the Sutta Pitaka in other two levels of Dhamma. They are the Vibhanga (The Book of Divisions) of the Abhidamma Pitaka, and the Pattäna Dhamma.
In the Suttas what you normally find is the most basic of the given key word, or theme, or concept. It is only in the other two levels that we get to find the deeper meaning. In reading these, one will see that what is meant by hetu is the root causes, and not just other  superficial causes.
Paccaya means  condition / conditions. There are 24 “paccaya” or “conditions” that can actually cause an effect to materialize; these are called “Pattäna Dhamma". Three such paccaya, are “hetu paccaya", “annantara samanantara paccaya”, and “annamanna paccaya”. 
Hetu, or Root causes, are three if you take it as raga, dosa, and, moha. It is of six type if taken as lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma). Then there are other Conditions.
Lets take the germination of a seed to understand the role of conditions or paccaya. The root condition to bring into existence a tree is embedded in a seed; this is called annantara paccaya. But suitable conditions for that seed to germinate are in fertile soil with adequate sunlight and water; this is called samanantara paccaya. Therefore, both annantara and samanantara paccaya must be satisfied to bring a tree to existence.
Since PS describes the “cause and effect” in Buddha Dhamma, most people think “avijja paccaya sankhara” means “avijja causes sankhara”, or that “sankhara paccaya vinnana” means “sankhara causes vinnana”. Any effect must have a cause. But there can be possible causes without leading to any effects.
The causes for bringing up a new tree are embedded in a seed. But just because a seed is there, a tree is not going to appear. If the seed is kept in a cool, dry place, one could keep it that way for a long time. Or one could burn or crush the seed, and it will not bring up a tree.
In order for causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what paccaya means. When such suitable conditions are present, causes will bring about corresponding effects. Thus when some effect is brought about, it is called “paccuppanna“, i.e., born (“uppanna“) via suitable conditions (“paccaya“); of course if the root causes must be there to begin with).
In the above example, if one plants that seed (cause) in a the ground and provides water, nutrients, and sun light (suitable conditions), then the seed could germinate and grow to a tree (effect or the result).

8157: <p>SN 22.82 and MN 109 state:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause (hetu) and condition (paccayo) for the <strong>manifestation</strong> (<strong>paññāpanāya</strong>) of the form (rupa) aggregate.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>Nāmarūpaṃ is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.</em></p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p><strong><em>Paññāpanāya</strong>: This might have been rendered "for the description of the form aggregate". Paññāpanā is literally "making known" and something is "made known" either by becoming manifest or by being described. Footnote: Bhikkhu Bodi</em> </p>
  
  <hr>
</blockquote>

<p>Dependent origination states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition (paccaya) come formations (sankhara). From formations as
  a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
  requisite condition comes nāmarūpaṃ. From nāmarūpaṃ as a requisite
  condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
  requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite
  condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes
  craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a
  requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition,
  then aging &amp; death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair
  come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress
  &amp; suffering.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In addition, Dependent Origination defines nāmarūpaṃ as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention — these are called nāma. The four great elements and the material form derived
  from the four great elements — these are called rūpa.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, there appear to many contradictions between SN 22.82 and Dependant Origination, which include:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Rupa caused (<em>hetu</em>) by elements vs rupa conditioned (<em>paccaya</em>) by consciousness</p></li>
<li><p>Sankhara caused (<em>hetu</em>) by contact vs sankhara conditioned (<em>paccaya</em>) by ignorance. </p></li>
<li><p>Feeling, perception &amp; intention caused (<em>hetu</em>) by contact vs contact conditioned (<em>paccaya</em>) by sense media conditioned (<em>paccaya</em>) by feeling, perception &amp; intention (<em>nāma</em>). </p></li>
<li><p>Consciousness caused (<em>hetu</em>) by namarupa vs namarupa conditioned (<em>paccaya</em>) by consciousness. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>Is there a contradiction here? Why is this so? How is this resolved? </p>
 11762: <p>It's a sublime Dharma, hard to understand, so let's examine some analogies.</p>

<p>Modern physics says that there are electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves and visible light. We can imagine them as some surface where waves spread from the center:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/miCk7.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/miCk7.jpg" alt="radio waves"></a></p>

<p>We can understand them by analogy with ocean waves:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ugqo4.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/ugqo4.jpg" alt="ocean waves"></a></p>

<p>But there is a big difference: waves in the ocean have water beneath and wind above. So the surface is "material".</p>

<p>Electromagnetic waves, however, don't have anything beneath and anything above. It's an imaginary surface.</p>

<p>Now let us examine what is consciousness. We often imagine it as a result of contact of two things:</p>

<ul>
<li>an organ of perception</li>
<li>and something that influences that organ of perception.</li>
</ul>

<p>Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.</p>

<p>It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).</p>

<p>We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.</p>

<p>Usually we imagine consciousness as some space that exists independently of everything else; when things appear in that space, they become perceived.</p>

<p>But Dharma asks us: are we sure that there is that immutable, metaphysical space called Consciousness?</p>

<p>We only know directly that consciousness <em>appears</em> when there is contact of organ and object. Does consciousness really exist apart from that?</p>

<p>If we examine that question, we can conclude that there is no actual reason to claim that consciousness exists constantly and independently; it's just our <em>mental model</em>.</p>

<p>Though we can speak about the reality as Only Consciousness (and sometimes it's useful), that is just our modeling; in direct perception Consciousness doesn't really exist (as something absolute or independent).</p>

<p>That helps to realize emptiness - no self - of all things and objects.</p>

<p>Actually all objects are our mental models we create from fluid momentary appearances.</p>

<p>Objects do not exist in themselves. They are only our way to associate individual sense data.</p>

<p>Then we can make another step and say that "objects of perception" and "organs of perception" are in fact our mental models.</p>

<p>The primary phenomena are momentary appearances. "Waves of consciousness".</p>

<p>It's like there are waves, like electromagnetic waves, but we imagine them as ocean waves, with something beneath and something above. In fact, for direct observation <em>something appears</em>. And then we build some mental models on top of that - adding there dualities, like "object" and "organ", or "mind" and "matter".</p>

<p>Consider this: looking at sea, we see waves, and we conclude that there is water beneath and wind above.</p>

<p>Likewise, from "consciousness" we conclude there are forms and mentations of them (rupa &amp; nama).</p>

<p>So various explanations are possible: that from nama-rupa consciousness appears, and that from consciousness nama-rupa appear.</p>

<p>In both cases we talk about the process of creation of mental models.</p>

<p>Awakening and liberation from delusion means we drop thinking of mental models as real things.</p>

<p>It's very sublime Dharma, very hard to understand without direct contemplation.</p>
 8044: <p>When you have questions of this kind, it is good to refer to the next two levels of Dhamma. One can always find the correct meanings to the key words that come up in reading the Sutta Pitaka in other two levels of Dhamma. They are the Vibhanga (The Book of Divisions) of the Abhidamma Pitaka, and the Pattäna Dhamma.</p>

<p>In the Suttas what you normally find is the most basic of the given key word, or theme, or concept. It is only in the other two levels that we get to find the deeper meaning. In reading these, one will see that what is meant by <em>hetu</em> is the root causes, and not just other  superficial causes.</p>

<p><em>Paccaya</em> means  condition / conditions. There are 24 “paccaya” or “conditions” that can actually cause an effect to materialize; these are called “Pattäna Dhamma". Three such paccaya, are “hetu paccaya", “annantara samanantara paccaya”, and “annamanna paccaya”. </p>

<p>Hetu, or Root causes, are three if you take it as raga, dosa, and, moha. It is of six type if taken as lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma). Then there are other Conditions.</p>

<p>Lets take the germination of a seed to understand the role of conditions or paccaya. The root condition to bring into existence a tree is embedded in a seed; this is called annantara paccaya. But suitable conditions for that seed to germinate are in fertile soil with adequate sunlight and water; this is called samanantara paccaya. Therefore, both annantara and samanantara paccaya must be satisfied to bring a tree to existence.</p>

<p>Since PS describes the “cause and effect” in Buddha Dhamma, most people think “avijja paccaya sankhara” means “avijja causes sankhara”, or that “sankhara paccaya vinnana” means “sankhara causes vinnana”. Any effect must have a cause. But there can be possible causes without leading to any effects.</p>

<p>The causes for bringing up a new tree are embedded in a seed. But just because a seed is there, a tree is not going to appear. If the seed is kept in a cool, dry place, one could keep it that way for a long time. Or one could burn or crush the seed, and it will not bring up a tree.</p>

<p>In order for causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what paccaya means. When such suitable conditions are present, causes will bring about corresponding effects. Thus when some effect is brought about, it is called “paccuppanna“, i.e., born (“uppanna“) via suitable conditions (“paccaya“); of course if the root causes must be there to begin with).</p>

<p>In the above example, if one plants that seed (cause) in a the ground and provides water, nutrients, and sun light (suitable conditions), then the seed could germinate and grow to a tree (effect or the result).</p>
