If the chain of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) ends, then isn't the last part independent?

Question

Dependent Origin or Pratītyasamutpāda is defined as

It states that all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas

And then there are these 12 causes one after another, each depending on the next one starting from Aging or decay, and death (Jarāmaraṇa) which depends on Birth, Rebirth (Jāti) and so on, which finally ends in Ignorance, nescience (Avidyā).

But notice Avidya seems to be not depending on anything. But as a rule all dharmas should be dependent on another dharma. How is this contradiction reconciled?

Source

Answer 1

There is a cyclic dependency between ignorance and defilements (also called taints or fermentation).

Ignorance originates from defilement. Ignorance ceases when defilement ceases.
Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo, āsavanirodhā avijjānirodho

Defilement originates from ignorance. Defilement ceases when ignorance ceases.
Avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo, avijjānirodhā āsavanirodho

MN 9

Why is there such a cyclic dependency? This is amply discussed in "Does MN9 imply a cyclic causation? How does it work?"

I quote from the best answer there:

It is like being born in a poor uneducated family: because you are poor, you can't get education, and because you can't get education you are poor.