2nd

Class Notes: Abhidharma 1 – Dharma Theory

OVERVIEW OF 2ND

– 7TH

CLASSES (A big picture view of Buddhism):

1. The truth of suffering

(duḥkhe-satya)

2. The truth of the cause of

suffering (samudaye-satya)

3. The truth of cessation

(nirodha-satya)

4. The truth of the path

(mārga-satya)

Defilement

[5th class]

World

[4th class]

Action

[5th class]

└───impure (sāsrava) dharmas───┘

Action (karma) conditioned by defilements (kleśa,

anuśaya) leads to results (generally as positive or negative

sensation, but the world is also seen as the result of the

collective karma of all beings). These results are then the

object of further defilements, or afflictive mental

reactions, which in turn are the condition for further

action, and the cycle continues.

Meditation

[7th class]

Awakening

[6th class]

Knowledge / insight

[6th - 7

th classes]

└───pure (anāsrava) dharmas───┘

Stages of awakening (bodhi) are defined in terms of the

elimination of the defilements such that one no longer

produces karmic actions to be retributed. Awakening has

knowledge (jñāna, prajñā) or insight for its cause.

Meditation (dhyāna, samādhi, samāpatti) is the

underlying condition for the arising of knowledge.

Underlying Principles – Dharma Theory:

Analysis of Dharmas, Attributes and Causation [2nd

– 4th classes]

pure and impure dharmas

Dharma theory is a systematic analysis of fundamental principles, the basis for the whole

system. The principles in themselves are abstract, which then get worked out in practice,

in the soteriological context of early Buddhism [as above, in the 4th – 7

th classes].

Today (and next week): DHARMA THEORY

Outline:

I. Main features of dharma theory

II. Development of dharma theory

III. The Abhidharma Problematic

IV. Sarvāstivāda

V. Studying the dharmas: Skandhas, Āyatanas, Dhātus & the ―Five Groups‖

Three Phases of Abhidharma Texts:

A. Canonical (7 texts) [4th - 1

st c. BCE]

B. Post-Canonical

i. Commentaries [1st c. BCE – 2

nd c. CE]

ii. Later summaries and re-

systemizations, etc. [2nd

– 7th c. CE]

I. MAIN FEATURES OF DHARMA THEORY

A. Significance:

- The concept of dharma is a central notion of the Abhidharma developments of Buddhism. In brief, Abhidharma

methodology consists of the analysis of dharmas (dharma theory), causes & conditions and attributes. Dharma theory

is the analysis of what is happening into a collection of distinct forces. Analysis of causes and conditions is the study

of how dharmas function. Analysis of attributes (pure/impure, etc.) is the study of how the dharmas are classified

(illustrating how the analysis dharmas interrelates with the soteriological framework).

- Dharma is a term with wide-ranging meanings and as Abhidharma developed, its function was expanded with

meanings and connotations which were to some extent unprecedented. The notion of the dharmas, and thus dharma

theory itself, evolved with the development of new analytical approaches and innovative doctrines. In the course of

these developments, lists of dharmas tended to consolidate as stricter methods of analysis weeded out repetition and

redundancy, and also expand through the accommodation of new concepts (e.g. the category of formations

disassociated from mind (viprayukta-saṃskārās)).

- Abhidharma discourse on dharmas, or dharma theory, proceeds from a phenomenological analysis of experience in

descriptive terms, emphasizing a systematic analysis of experience in which there is an attempt to define all terms and

their interrelations. It aspires to ultimate truth, a true account of ―how things really are‖ (yathabhutam).

B. Definition of dharma and dharmas - The word dharma is originally derived from the Indic root dhr, with the meaning of ―that which preserves or

maintains‖, especially that which preserves or maintains human activity. The term has a wide range of meanings: (1)

Custom, habit, standard of behavior; (2) That which should be done; occupation, duty, obligation; (3) social order,

social pattern; (4) goodness, good action, virtue; (5) truth, reality, true principle, law, (6) teachings, explanation; (7)

Attribute, quality, characteristic quality, elemental construct.

- Three principle meanings in the Abhidharma context:

i. An ultimate factor of existence

ii. Mental objects, the object domain of the mind-consciousness

iii. Buddhist teachings, Buddhist doctrine.

- The first meaning above, dharmas as ultimate factors of existence, is the meaning of dharmas in dharma theory. As

Cox states, ―This is dharma in the sense that has been variously translated or glossed by factor, thing, element,

constituent, phenomenon, event, datum, property, quality, fundamental existent, reality, or not infrequently left

untranslated.‖ Dharmas in this sense refer to a set of real, distinct types of forces:

a) Dharmas are distinct – they cannot be reduced to each other. Note however that they are not separate as they do

not function in isolation. Many conditions give rise to one dharma which functions in various ways. They are

irreducible only in the sense that reducing them further strips them of their distinct quality. Abhidharmakośa (AKB)

I.18: ―A dharma is included in its own nature because it is distinct from the nature of others.‖ Note also, Waldron:

―while dharmas may ultimately refer to experiential phenomena, what counts as a dharma in any system of

description must itself be distinguished from other dharmas.‖

b) Dharmas are forces, functions or efficacies – Dharmas are not things or substances. They are dynamic events

or relations rather than static entities. The only way conditioned (saṃskrta) dharmas exist is as conditioned and

conditioning forces. To exist is to cause and be caused. No dharma has only one cause and all dharmas have

multiple causal functions within the Sarvāstivāda analysis of causation (to be discussed in the 4th class). Dharmas

have no existence aside from their causal or functional role. For the Sarvāstivādins, denying the reality of the

dharmas amounts to denying the reality of dependent co-arising. Collett Cox: ―They [dharmas] represent causally

significant points within the complex web of experienced activities, but points that can only be determined

relationally and that can only be defined dynamically. These relational distinctions that define dharmas are not

considered arbitrary, but rather are ‗true‘ or express ‗the way things really are‘ in the sense that they articulate the

fundamental causal structures implicit within all experience.‖ Note: strictly speaking, unconditioned (asaṃskrta)

dharmas have neither cause nor result, nevertheless, they do have a function which is their characteristic nature

establishing their existence as distinct dharmas.

c) Dharmas are categories or types – A list of dharmas is actually a list of categories of types into which dharmas

as actual instances can be classified. A plurality of phenomena (dharmas as instances, which are momentary) are

subsumed within any category (dharma as type, which are immutable). The phenomena that can be classed under a

given type can vary in degree or intensity as well as quality or kind, but all share the same sva-lakṣaṇa, distinct

own-characteristic. Dharmas in some pure form do not appear as such. They are types: a given dharma is ―typical‖

of an array of many different phenomena all of the same type. Dharmas as types or categories constitute

fundamental regularities underlying and structuring what is happening, and as instances, manifest those regularities.

d) Dharmas are real – Real in the sense that dharmas are established by their own nature as being truly distinct

force-tendencies. Dharmas are real in that they have ultimate existence in contrast to composite entities, such as the

self, a pot, common-sense things, etc. which only have conventional existence. Conventional entities depend on

designation for their existence, dharmas do not. AKB I.2: ―Dharma is that which bears (dharana) self-(or unique)

characteristics (sva-lakṣaṇa).‖ Intrinsic nature is able to ―uphold‖ or ―bear‖ its own identity. These definitions play

on the root of dharma: dhr – ―to hold‖. Cox: ―a dharma‘s own identity (atmabhāva) is not contingent upon

conditions and is invariable.‖

C. Basic Soteriology

- AKB I.3: ―Apart from the discernment of the dharmas there is no way to abandon the defilements and it is by reason

of the defilements that world wanders in the ocean of existence.‖ Discernment of the dharmas (dharma-pravicaya), by

which one discriminates, investigates, and reflects thoroughly upon the dharmas, is the center-point of Abhidharma

soteriology, the fundamental point of Buddhism. It is only through a thorough and systematic examination of the true

nature of all dharmas that the truth of the Buddha‘s teaching can be fully understood and liberation realized.

- This discernment involves comprehending one‘s experience in terms of two types of characteristics:

i. Sva-lakṣaṇa – ―specific or own- characteristic‖: the feature which uniquely distinguishes a dharma. This refers to

the specific force or efficacy each dharma possesses whereby it is distinct from other dharmas (―Dharma is that

which bears its own-characteristic.‖). The Mahāvibhāṣā states, ―the entity (dharma) itself is [its] characteristic,

and the characteristic is the entity itself.‖ The sva-lakṣaṇa is the particular characteristic which establishes the

dharma as real. Ultimately, sva-lakṣaṇa is sva-bhāva (own-being, having its own existence). Soteriologically,

discerning the sva-lakṣaṇas of dharmas can be seen as a process of deepening intimacy with one‘s experience in

each moment, a deepening intimacy with the basic facts of experience.

ii. Samanya-lakṣaṇa – ―common characteristic‖: generic characteristics shared by many dharmas. The most

important samanya-lakṣaṇas are suffering, impermanence, emptiness and not-self. Discerning the sva-lakṣaṇa of

dharmas is not in and of itself liberating. One must see, or develop insight into, the truth of the teachings reflected

in the dharmas. The culminating insight of the path consists of seeing the Four Noble Truths which are further

analyzed into 16 aspects (the first 4 are as above, suffering, etc.). These 16 aspects are ―common characteristics‖.

D. Momentariness (Kṣanika)

- A close corollary of dharma theory and an important factor in its development is ―momentariness‖, a radical

interpretation of impermanence by which dharmas flash into existence for a single instant (kṣana) and then

immediately pass away. Technically, an instant or moment (kṣana) has no duration, but there were nevertheless

various accounts of their basic extent ranging from approximately 75,000 per second in the Mahāvibhāṣā, to a more

reasonable 75 per second in the Abhidharmakośa. Regardless of their duration, in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, instants

were held to be discrete and uniform.

- An individual person, in such a context, not possessing self-existence, but still evincing some form of continuity, is

referred to as a ―series‖ (santati or santāna), that is, a flux, continuum or unceasing flow of momentary dharmas. A

traditional illustration is a flickering flame, a constantly renewing series.

- The Abhidharmakośa on Momentariness: ―a conditioned thing perishes as soon as it arises; if it did not perish

immediately, it would not perish later, since it would then remain the same. Since you admit that it perishes, you must

admit that it immediately perishes...Would you say that a conditioned thing changes and that, consequently, it is later

subject to destruction? It is absurd to say that a certain thing changes, becoming another thing, staying the same thing

that you say shows its modified characteristics...The destruction of things is spontaneous. Things perish in and of

themselves, because it is their nature to perish. As they perish in and of themselves, they perish upon arising. As they

perish upon arising, they are momentary…‖

- There were variations among the Abhidharma schools regarding momentariness. Some, such as the Sarvāstivādins,

held that all conditioned things are momentary. Some held that only mental phenomena are momentary. A later

orthodox Theravadin position held that there are 17 moments of mind-dharmas for one moment of material-form

dharmas.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF DHARMA THEORY - Two Sets of Interrelated Strands

- This is an attempt to identify some of the strands or currents in the early development of Buddhism that led to dharma

theory and momentariness. These are mainly reasoned guesswork - the actual constellations of factors and forces

involved may never be clearly established.

A. Development of dharma theory

1. Mātṛkā (matrix, list) - The early Buddhist canon is referred to as the Tripiṭaka (three baskets) referring to the collections of Discourses

(sūtra), Monastic discipline (vinaya) and Abhidharma. This may be an extension of a canonical distinction of

specialists in sūtra (sūtra-dhara), vinaya (vinaya-dhara) and mātṛkā (mātṛkā-dhara).

- Simple lists of teachings called mātṛkā (matrix or list of headings) develop to systematically summarize the discourse

teachings, which were sizable (~ 5,000 pages in translation) and included a number of contradictory teachings, etc. The

37 bodhi-pakṣika (limbs of awakening) perhaps represent an early example, assembling a number of teachings into a

kind of meta-teaching, including the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness, the 5 Faculties, the 7 Factors of Awakening and

the 8 Parts of the Path, etc. The initial inspiration for such lists appears to have been pedagogical: they could present a

concise and easily digestible summary of the essential teachings.

- To actually be helpful however, such lists needed explanation. In many cases, this explanation would have been

informal, but in some cases, an authoritative commentary would develop and become a new text in its own right.

Typically, students would memorize the list or lists, and later, verse summaries, which would serve as a kind of frame

or scaffolding for receiving and studying a full explanation or presentation of the teachings.

- The early canonical Abhidharma texts often engage in an exhaustive analysis of how the elements of a given mātṛkā

interacted with each other as well as with other mātṛkā. In a comparative analysis, there are two basic kinds of mātṛkā:

i. Lists of teachings, dharmas, etc. e.g. 37 limbs of awakening.

ii. Lists of categories (typically dyads (pure and impure) and triads (good, bad and neutral))

Typically, a list of categories (ii.) would be systematically applied to a list of dharmas (i.), sometimes in various

combinations, hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands of permutations explicitly worked out in the texts.

- Along these lines, Cox cites Bronkhorst as ―adopting the position that dharma in the sense of ‗element‘ is derived

from dharma as ‗teaching,‘ observes that ‗efforts were made to distill the most important ideas and concepts from [the

Buddha‘s] teaching . . .[which] gave rise to lists of so-called dharmas.‘…[and] suggests that the later ‗peculiarly

Buddhist‘ sense of dharma as ‗element‘ might be traced to a particular, early analytical matrix (mātṛkā) or list of

categories consisting of psychic characteristics or dharmas intended as a summary of the teaching of the Buddha.‖

- Cox states: ―On the one hand, the lists of categories (mātṛkā) represent the salient experiential distinctions grounded

in the observed properties or activities by which dharmas are defined, and on the other, they become the context within

which the concept of dharma evolves.‖

2. Mental Factors

- The earliest lists of elements which resemble the later dharma lists were lists of the mental factors present in a set of

successively deeper meditation states (dhyānas), possibly based on introspection. To some extent, the mental factors

present in succeeding states of meditation were the principle way in which these states of concentration were defined.

In the Anupada Sutta: One by One as They Occurred (Majjhima Nikaya 111), the Buddha states:

―During half a month, bhikkhus, Sariputra had insight into states one by one as they occurred. Now Sairiputra‘s

insight into states one by one as they occurred was this: Here, bhikkus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures,

secluded from unwholesome states, Sariputra entered upon and abided in the first jhana, which is accompanied by

applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. And the states in the first jhana – the

applied thought, the sustained thought, the rapture, the pleasure, and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling,

perception, volition, and mind; the zeal, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention – these states

were defined by him one by one as they occurred; known to him those states arose, known they were present,

known they disappeared. He understood thus: ‗So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having

been, they vanish.‘ Regarding these states, he abided unattracted, unrepelled, independent, detached, free,

diassociated, with a mind rid of barriers…‖

- The study and enumeration of mental factors then appears to have expanded into an examination of the mental factors

present in ordinary states of mind. Of particular interest was the mental factors present in morally skillful/good

(kuśala) and unskillful/bad (akuśala) states of mind (as karma maintains saṃsāra). Expressing a psychological

approach to karma, the collection of mental factors present in a given moment of mind defines the moral valence of

one‘s action. An important corollary to this analysis was that morally conflicting mental factors could not co-exist in

one moment of mind.

3. A Unified Approach to the Teachings

- The Buddha taught a number of taxonomies for analyzing experience each with its own purpose. For example, the 5

skandhas (aggregates) were taught to clarify that there is no need to posit a substantial self in order to account for all

experience. The 18 dhātus (spheres or elements) were taught to demonstrate how consciousness arises.

- Dharma theory arises in part through efforts to develop a unifying substrate underlying and connecting these schema.

Abhidharma texts use an enumeration of dharmas to demonstrate how these taxonomies interrelate.

- These taxonomies themselves can be seen as early predecessors of dharma-theory as they present a set of categories

which can be used to subsume all phenomena.

- As Cox demonstrates, in the early phases of Abhidharma usage, svabhāva (own-being) was applied to the taxonomies

of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhātus, etc., delineating experientially or soteriologically significant categories. In later

developments, however, svabhāva comes to focus on the specific character and existence of the (often multiple)

dharmas which constitute the traditional categories (from CATEGORY to ONTOLOGY).

4. The 4th

Foundation of Mindfulness

- The 4 Foundations of Mindfulness are a very important teaching in the early discourses, describing a course of

insight practice. The 4 Foundations are: body, sensation, mind and dharmas. In the early discourses, the 4th category,

dharmas, included a number of teaching devices such as the 5 hindrances, 5 skandhas, 4 noble truths, etc.

- In Abhidharma texts, the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness are viewed as sequential, culminating in the 4th Foundation of

Mindfulness of dharmas. The interpretation of dharmas however comes to be equated with dharmas in the

Abhidharma context of dharma theory, that is, the 4th Foundation of Mindfulness is equivalent to the discernment of

dharmas (dharma-pravicaya).

5. Developing an Ultimate Discourse

- The Abhidharma undertaking in part sought to develop an ultimate discourse out of the Buddha‘s teachings. For

example, even though the Buddha taught that there is no self, for the sake of teaching, he might use terms such as

―you‖, ―me‖ and ―I‖ provisionally for the sake of the listener. The Abhidharmikas might replace such terms with ―Five

skandhas‖. This is one interpretation of the ―abhi‖ (higher or facing) of Abhidharma: it aspires to a higher or ultimate

teaching, with no concessions to misleading usages of everyday discourse.

- The Abhidharma texts thus come to define two levels of truth:

i. Conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) consists of everyday things which depend on designation (prajñāpti) for their

existence. The composite objects of ordinary experience which can be analyzed or broken down into parts.

ii. Ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) consists of dharmas which cannot be reduced through further analysis and

which do not depend on designation for their existence. They are real – they possess sva-bhāva (own-being,

existing on their own).

- Along with this effort to develop an ultimate discourse, there is an effort to carefully eliminate all redundancies from

the lists of dharmas, identifying synonyms, subsuming terms, etc. Lists of dharmas gradual develop from being open-

ended, flexible and practice-oriented to being increasingly closed, fixed, abstract and theoretical. (Some of these

developments may have been influenced by Upanishadic teachings of reality as a fixed set of ―sva-dharmas‖ (essence,

own-nature).)

6. Incorporating Innovations

- As described above, initially the lists of mental factors appear to have been arrived at through introspection. As

Abhidharma problematics increase (see below) however, a number of dharmas are proposed not based on

introspection, but on ―making the system work.‖

- This is evident in such non-experiential dharmas as avijñapti-rūpa (non-informative matter), the unconditioned

dharmas and the dharmas disassociated from mind. As the importance of these new categories grows, a new

classification of the dharmas in terms of Five Groups (pañca-vastuka) develops.

B. Development of Momentariness

1. Analysis of consciousness

- Early Buddhist teachings taught that consciousness arises through the coming together of an organ and an object.

This notion of consciousness contradicts the notions of a continuous stream of consciousness, a pure consciousness

existing on its own, or a blank consciousness into which things enter. Such teachings were a sub-set of the doctrine of

no-self (anātman) – in this case, emphasizing that there is no permanent or unchanging self. Continuity in this context

is deeply question and mind is rather conceived as a flow of mental events.

- The experienced continuity of consciousness is then an illusion which to some extent implies a version of

momentariness in which moments of consciousness arises in continuous succession, like the frames of a movie.

- While such conceptions of mind and the fleeting nature of mental events suggest momentariness, the notion that all

mental events, and further all phenomena of mind and material form, are uniformly momentary and discrete is still a

leap. The momentariness of material entities may follow from the momentariness of mental events in part because of

the epistemological disposition of Indian Buddhism, which tended to emphasize knower and known more than mind

and matter.

2. Meditative experience

- It has also been proposed that the theory of momentariness may have been inspired or ―discovered‖ by experiences in

highly concentrated meditation states. In particular, the object of such meditation practices may have been the above

topic of the arising of consciousness or the topic below of impermanence. Such contemplations were cultivated by

willfully reducing the time-span or ―window‖ of one‘s attention.

- There are references in Abhidharma texts to the direct observation of the momentary rise and fall of mental and

material events, although technically, this may be impossible in the fully developed version of momentariness as

consciousness and all entities are in and of momentariness itself.

3. Impermanence

- Impermanence (anityatā) is a core teaching of early Buddhism. The later tradition would distinguish two types of

impermanence:

i. Conventional impermanence: All conditioned things exist for awhile and then end. This is the nature of things that

exist conventionally, including ourselves and everything we care about. Contemplating this type of

impermanence was strongly emphasized in early Buddhism.

ii. Radical impermanence: Things do not last for awhile and then end, but are constant moment-to-moment change.

Change is not a property of persisting entities, rather, but of the non-identity of dharmas arising dependently in

each moment.

- Some version of radical impermanence seems to be implied at various points in the early teachings. For example, the

analysis of consciousness above as well as the ―suffering of conditioned existence‖, the lack of fulfillment that arises

from grasping after a substantially existing self.

- While these two types of impermanence are to some extent mixed together in early Buddhism, momentariness is a

pure example of radical impermanence. The later tradition would develop arguments deducing momentariness from

the doctrine of change by arguing that entities cannot change without losing their identity, so any change implies the

passing away of the former entity and the arising of a new entity. This process of change is extended to apply at every

moment, or instant, by reflecting on the process of aging.

- Abhidharma texts also attempt to establish momentariness by arguing that dharmas perish on account of their own-

being as soon as they arise (as expressed in the Abhidharmakośa quote above). Vasubandhu argues that the perishing

of dharmas, as mere non-existence, does not qualify as an effect, and therefore is not the result of some other cause.

4. Reductivist approach to substance

- The theory of momentariness arises in Abhidharma along with a correlate theory of atoms. Both theories may reflect

an effort within Buddhism and influenced generally by Indian cultural developments of a reductivist approach to the

delineation of ultimate existents. Moments (kṣana) are then ―temporal atoms‖.

- It has been suggested that initially a kṣana was a duration which was identified with the duration of mental events

and that this identification in turn led to a notion of momentary existence (dharmas as momentary).

III. THE ABHIDHARMA PROBLEMATIC

- William Waldron has suggested that dharma theory and momentariness represent a ―synchronic‖ methodology or

discourse, emphasizing a description of reality in terms of a concatenation of mutually conditioning dharmas arising

for an instant and in which, in any one mind-series, there cannot be dharmas of conflicting moral valence in the same

instant.

- Waldron contrasts this ―synchronic‖ methodology with a ―diachronic‖ soteriology of early Buddhism, a soteriology

which Abhidharma attempts to maintain and integrate. Waldron is here pointing to such ―diachronic‖ elements as the

continuity of samsaric existence (being caught in cyclic suffering and rebirth), the accumulation and later fruition of

karma (which must always take place at a later time), and the latent persistence of defilements. [We will study karma

and the defilements in much more depth in the 5th class.] The early discourses can be characterized as a process-

oriented descriptive psychology. In the Abhidharma, this develops into a highly systematic event-based ontology.

- A great number of Abhidharma controversies, and an important basis for the later development of Yogācāra, arise in

the great challenge of accounting for what is basically a diachronic soteriology (the elimination of latently persisting

defilements which in turn fuel karma) with a synchronic methodology (dharma theory, momentariness) - a deep

tension between the ultimate aim of Abhidharma and its immediate method. Waldron: ―even though the synchronic

dharmic analysis was considered the only ultimate discourse, Abhidharma could not dispense with the diachronic

context that provided its larger soteriological framework.‖ In the dharma theory analysis, how could habits or strong

dispositions towards impure defilements, and also unretributed bad karmic acts, coexist in one moment with a good or

pure state of mind? As dharma theory developed, this fundamental problematic led to numerous doctrinal disputes and

innovative responses.

- There were two main ways to respond to this problematic:

i. Making adjustments to the synchronic analysis to incorporate key elements of diachronic discourse. This

approach was adopted by the Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma school.

ii. Stepping back from the Abhidharma approach of solely identifying ultimate truth with dharma theory and

affirming the authority of the diachronic discourse as revealed in the early Sūtra literature. This approach was

adopted by the Sautrāntika (―those who follow sūtras‖) school (in the Abhidharmakośa, Vasubandhu gives

expression to a number of key Sautrāntika critiques of Sarvāstivādin positions). The Sautrāntika approach to the

problematic is to introduce the notion of provisionally existing (and thus non-dharmic) concept of seeds (bīja) to

explain the fruition of karma and the persistence of latent defilements.

- It is important to keep in mind the value and power of the synchronic dharma theory approach. The unwieldy mass of

the early discourse literature is worked into a coherent, systematic and unique religious philosophy which may have

played a pivotal role in the ongoing survival and dissemination of Buddhism. Dharma theory formed a shared context

for the Abhidharma schools itself fueling numerous controversies, but also serving as a common language in which

Buddhism opens into new levels of philosophical sophistication and development. (Although it is a stretch, some

aspects momentariness may resonate with the vision of existence suggested by quantum physics.)

- Later, the development of the core Yogācāra teaching of the store-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) to some extent

bridges these two responses, representing a kind of paradigm shift [we will discuss this more fully in the 11th class, the

first class on Yogācāra].

IV. SARVĀSTIVĀDA

- The Sarvāstivāda school is named after a distinct and central doctrine of the school: ―Everything (sarva) Exists

(asti)‖. In particular, the teaching of sarvāstitva is the assertion that the dharmas of the past, present and future all truly

exist.

- Initially, the doctrine of sarvāstitva may have been a simple affirmation of cause and effect: past dharmas exist, as

present dharmas arise based on them, and future dharmas exist, as the present dharmas will give rise to them. As such,

it represented a responsible attitude toward the past and future that may have been obscured in over-emphasizing the

sole reality of present moment.

- Opposed to the sarvāstitva thesis was a group of schools sometimes collected under the designation, Vibhajyavada

(including the Mahasasika, Dharmagupta and later, the Sautrāntika). The Vibhajyavada held that only present dharmas

exist. Past dharmas have existed, futures dharmas will come into existence, but only present dharmas really exist.

Vibhajyavada positions sometimes also include the position that past karma that has not yet come to fruition exists.

- Standard arguments for the existence of the dharmas in the three times include:

i. Scriptural citations – For example, the following passage from the early sūtras is quoted: ―Monks, if past rūpa did

not exist, the learned holy Sravakas would ‗not take into consideration‘ past rūpa . . . If future rūpa did not exist,

the learned holy Sravakas would ‗not delight in‘ future rūpa. It is because future rūpa exists that the learned holy

Sravakas…‖

ii. Objects of consciousness exist – Consciousness only arises when there is an object, not where there is no object

(there is no pure consciousness). If the past and future dharmas did not exist, there would be a consciousness

with a non-existent object (but then, consciousness would actually not exist). As we do have cognition of past

and future dharmas, past and future dharmas exist.

iii. The past bears results – The doctrine of karma stipulates that karmic acts come to fruition when the act itself is

in the past.

- The 3rd

argument (iii.) above illustrates one example of how sarvāstitva functions to resolve some of issues of the

Abhidharma problematic. Another key piece to Sarvāstivāda doctrine in this context is the citta-viprayukta (dissociated

from mind) dharma of possession (prapti). We will study these developments in more detail in the 5th class.

- If dharmas exist in the three time periods, how is it that everything does not all happen at once? Sarvāstivāda

basically confirms the above dharma theory notion that existence is causal efficacy. There is a specific kind of causal

efficacy which dharmas only exert when they are presently manifesting, kāritra (activity). Other forms of efficacy

(later termed ―capability‖ (sāmarthya) by Saṃghabhadra) can be exerted by a dharma in the three times, in concert

with other cooperating causes and conditions (other dharmas, such as prapti). Sarvāstitva, and other doctrines such as

prapti (possession) can be seen as practical attempts to insert some non-momentary reality into the relentless

momentariness of the dharma theory.

V. STUDYING THE DHARMAS: SKANDHAS, ĀYATANAS, DHĀTUS AND THE “FIVE GROUPS”

- As mentioned above, three basic aspects to the Abhidharma approach to the study of the dharmas:

i. Analysis of the dharmas (definitions, etc.) – PRIMARILY DESCRIPTIVE (2nd

and 3rd

classes)

ii. Attributes and classifications of the dharmas – PRIMARILY EVALUATIVE (3rd

class)

iii. Study of causes & conditions - PRIMARILY INTERRELATIONAL (4th class)

- As mentioned above, Abhidharma analysis of the dharmas flows out of and continuously returns to important

taxonomies of the early discourse literature. Most prominently, the three categories of skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus.

A. The Five Skandhas

- The 5 skandhas (aggregate, heap) emphasize the distinction between material form and mental events and places

great importance on two mental events in particular: sensation (vedanā) and conception (saṃjñā) – the 2nd

and 3rd

skandhas (in the skandha analysis, they are the primary cause of transmigration). Technically, the 2nd

and 3rd

skandhas

are saṃskārās (formative factors) that could be subsumed under the 4th skandha.

- The skandhas represent an exhaustive analysis of human experience intended to demonstrate that there is no need to

appeal to a substantial self (ātman) either within, identical to, or outside of the skandhas, in order to account for

everything we experience. As such, humans are conceptualized as fundamentally composite. From the Alagaddupama

Sutta (The Simile of the Snake, MN 22):

"Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their

Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus:

'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' He regards feeling thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is

not my self.' He regards perception thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' He regards formations

thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized,

encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' And this

standpoint for views, namely, 'That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting,

eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity'-this too he regards thus: 'This is not mine, this I am

not, this is not my self.' Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent."

- Definitions of the 5 Skandhas:

1. Rūpa (material form) Skandha: 5 sense organs, 5 sense objects and avijñapti:

The 5 sense organs are the subtle materiality of the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body.

The 5 sense objects are defined as follows:

Visible matter is color and shape, or twenty-fold: four primary colors (blue, red, yellow, white), eight more

colors (cloud, smoke, dust, mist, shade, glare, glow, darkness), and eight shapes (long, short, square, round,

high, low, even, uneven). The Sautrāntika only admit color, not shape or form, as a dharma.

Sound is eightfold: caused by (1) animate or (2) inanimate beings, (3) articulate speech and (4) non-articulate

sound, and in all 4 cases, either agreeable or disagreeable.

Taste is sixfold: sweet, sour, salty, pungent, bitter, astringent.

Odor is fourfold: good and bad odors that are either excessive or non-excessive.

Tangibles are elevenfold: four primary elements (earth/solidity, water/humidity, fire/heat, wind/motion),

softness, hardness, weight, lightness, cold, hunger, thirst.

Avijñapti: ―That serial continuity - pure or impure - which exists even in one whose thought is distracted or who is

without thought, and which is dependent on the Great Elements, is called the non-informative (avijñapti) [matter].‖

4 elements: Element: Characteristic: Function:

The characteristics and functions indicate

that the names of the elements (mahā-

bhūta) should not be taken literally.

Earth Hardness/Solidity Supporting

Water Humidity/moisture Cohesion/collecting

Fire Heat Ripening

Air Motion/mobility Expanding/spreading

2. Vedanā (sensation) Skandha: ―The aggregate of feeling (vedanā-skandha) comprises three types of affect:

pleasure (sukha), suffering (duḥkha), and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure (aduḥkhasukha). Again, that [aggregate]

can be divided into six groups of feeling (vedanā-kāya): from feeling born of eye-contact through feeling born of

mind-contact.‖

3. Saṃjñā (conception) Skandha: ―This is the aggregate of ideas, namely the apprehension (grahaṇa) of ‗marks‘

(nimitta) such as blue or yellow, long or short, female or male, friend or enemy, and so on.‖ (grahaṇa: ―grasping‖,

―determining‖)

4. Saṃskārā (formations) Skandha: ―Saṁskāra-skandha are the saṁskāras different from the other four skandhas‖.

See the 75 dharmas table for a detailed exposition of the Saṃskārās: citta-samprayukta and citta-viprayukta.

Note: Cetanā was the original saṃskārā or formative influence (causal)/formation (result, disposition)

5. Vijñāna (consciousness) Skandha: ―Consciousness is the impression relative to each object.‖

- There are various accounts justifying the order of the skandhas, for example:

a) In terms of the meaning of a bowl, etc the aggregates are [figuratively] - 1. the bowl [rūpa], 2. the food [vedanā],

3. the seasoning [saṃjñā], 4. the cook [saṃskārā], 5. and the eater [vijñāna].

b) Also in terms of defilement: Beings are attached to material form (rūpa), because they are attached to the

pleasures of sensation (vedanā), which proceeds from erroneous ideas (saṃjñā), which are due to the

defilements (saṃskārā), and it is the mind (citta, i.e. vijñāna) which is defiled.

B. The Twelve Āyatanas

- The 12 āyatanas (also referred to as the 6 bases) consist of the 6 organs and the 6 objects. The first 5 organs are

somewhat commonsensical – eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. The 6th is a particularly Buddhist analysis – that the

mind and its objects basically function like any other sense organ.

- This approach to the life of the mind can feel impoverished. On one hand, this sense of lack may reflect the fact that

there is no self in the description (we may feel that the mind is different from the organs because we are often

particularly identified or attached to mind or consciousness). On the other hand, the dharma-dhātu includes numerous

mental factors (caitta) and receives far more attention in the analysis than the other sense realms.

- The āyatanas are a way of classifying and studying all experience (SN 35.23):

―And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes,

the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all…without directly knowing and

fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of

destroying suffering.‖

C. The Eighteen Dhātu

- The 12 āyatanas are included in (as the 1st twelve), or equated with (see chart on next page), the 18 dhātus.

- The 18 dhātus emphasize a basic formula of dependent-arising:

From the coming together (contact, sparśa) of the eye-organ and sight object, there arises eye-consciousness.

- The18 dhātus (aṣṭādaśa-dhātavaḥ) (and their correspondence to the 5 skandhas):

ṣaḍ-viṣaya (6 objects) ṣaḍ-indriya (6 organs ) ṣaḍ-vijñāna (6 consciousnesses)

┌

│

│

│

1. rūpa-│

skandha│

[1. - 5. &│

7. - 11.]│

│

│

│

└

1. rūpa (sight objects) 7. cakṣur (eye organ) 13. cakṣur-vijñana (eye-

consciousness)

2. śabda (sound objects) 8. śrotra (ear organ) 14. śrotra-vijñana (ear-

consciousness)

3. gandha (smell objects) 9. ghrāṇa (nose organ) 15. ghrāṇa-vijñana (nose-

consciousness)

4. rasa (taste objects) 10. jihva (tongue organ) 16. jihva-vijñana (tongue-

consciousness)

5. spraṣṭavya (tangible

objects) 11. kāya (touch organ)

17. kāya-vijñana (touch-

consciousness)

6. dharma (mind objects) 12. mano (mind organ)

18. mano-vijñana (mind-

consciousness)

2. vedanā-skandha, 3. samja-skandha

and 4. saṃskārā-skandha [6.]

└ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ┘

5. vijñāna-skandha [12. – 18.]

Panca-vastuka

5 Categories

5 Skandha

Aggregates

75 Dharmas (Puguang’s distillation from the

Abhidharmakosa, Ch I, II & V)

12 Ayatana

Gates

18 Dhatu

Elements

Five Indriya (Faculties)

1.Caksur (eye)

2.Srotra (ear)

3.Ghrana (nose)

4.Jihva (tongue)

5.Kaya (touch)

1.Caksur (eye)

2.Srotra (ear)

3.Ghrana (nose)

4.Jihva (tongue)

5.Kaya (touch)

1.Caksur (eye)

2.Srotra (ear)

3.Ghrana (nose)

4.Jihva (tongue)

5.Kaya (touch)

I. Rupa

(material form)

1.Rupa-skandha

(material form)

Five Artha (Sensory objects)

6.Rupa (sight)

7.Sabda (sound)

8.Gandha (smell)

9.Rasa (taste)

10.Sparstavya (tangible)

6.Mano (mind) 6.Mano (mind)

7.Rupa (sight)

8.Sabda (sound)

9.Gandha (smell)

10.Rasa (taste)

11.Sparstavya

(tangible)

7.Rupa (sight)

8.Sabda (sound)

9.Gandha (smell)

10.Rasa (taste)

11.Sparstavya

(tangible)

11. Avijnapti (non-infromation)

II. Citta (Mind) 12. Citta (thought)

2.Vedana-

skandha (feeling)

Samprayukta (46 caitta): Mahabhumikas (universals):

13. Vedana (sensation), 14. Cetana (volition), 15. Samjna

(ideation), 16. Chanda (predilection), 17. Sparsa (contact),

18. Prajna (understanding), 19. Smrti (mindfulness), 20.

Manaskara (attention), 21. Adhimoksha (determination), 22.

Samadhi (concentration)

Kusala-mahabhumikas (skillful universals):

23. Sraddha (faith), 24. Apramada (diligence), 25.

Prasrabdhi (calm), 26. Upeksa (equanimity), 27. Hri

(modesty), 28. Apatrapya (shame), 29. Alobha (non-greed),

30. Advesa (non-hatred), 31. Avihimsa (harmlessness), 32.

Virya (vigor).

Klesa-mahabhumikas (Defiled universals):

33. Moha (delusion), 34. Pramada (non-diligence), 35.

Kausidya (slackness), 36. Asraddhya (lack of faith), 37.

Styana (torpor), 38. Auddhatya (restlessness)

Akusala-mahabhumikas (unskillful universals):

39. Ahrikya (non-modesty), 40. Anapatrapya

(shamelessness)

Parittaklesa-bhumikas (defilements of restricted scope):

41. Krodha (anger), 42. Upanaha (enmity), 43. Sathya

(dissimulation), 44. Irsya (jealousy), 45. Pradasa

(stubbornness), 46. Mraksa (concealment), 47. Matsarya

(avarice), 48. Maya (deceptiveness), 49. Mada (pride), 50.

Vihimsa (harmfulness)

Aniyata (indeterminates):

51. Kaukrtya (remorse), 52. Middha (sleep), 53. Vitarka

(reasoning), 54. Vicara (investigation), 55. Raga (greed), 56.

Pratigha (hostility), 57. Mana (conceit), 58. Vicikitsa (doubt)

12. Dharma 12.Dharma

3.Samjna-skandha

(conception)

III. Caita-sika

(mental factors)

Six Vijnana

consciousnesses:

13.Caksur (eye)

14.Srotra (ear)

15.Ghrana (nose)

16.Jihva (tongue)

17.Kaya (touch)

18. Mano (mind)

4.Samskara-

skandha

(formations)

IV.Viprayukta-

samskara

(disassociated

formations)

Viprayukta (14): 59. Prapti (acquisition), 60. Aprapti (non-

acquisition), 61. Nikaya-sabhaga (group-homogeniety), 62.

Asamjnika (Ideationlessness), 63. Asamjni-samapatti

(ideationless attainment), 64. Nirodha-samapatti (cessation

attainment), 65. Jivitendriya (vital faculty), 66. Jati-laksana

(production-characteristic), 67. Sthiti-laksana (duration-

characteristic), 68. Jara-laksana (deterioration-

characteristic), 69. Anityata-laksana (impermenence-

characteristic), 70. Namakaya (word-group), 71. Pada-kaya

(phrase-group), 72. Vyanjana-kaya (syllable group)

5.Vijnana-skandha

(consciousness)

V. Asamskrta

(unconditioned)

73. Pratisamkhya-nirodha (extinction through deliberation),

74. Apratisamkhya-nirodha (extinction not through

deliberation),

75. Akasa

Rupa-skandha, mano-

ayatana, & dharma-dhatu

subsume all dharmas - see

AKB Ch I, K18