PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 27, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Reconsidering the Debates on Conditioned Dharmas in Early Buddhism

View Full Paper
MKMs. Shweta KumariGPGyan Prakash

Key Points

  • The paper aims to clarify the philosophical disagreements about the ontology of conditioned dharmas between Vasubandhu and Saṃghabhadra.
  • Conducted a comparative analysis of the interpretations of conditioned dharmas by Vasubandhu and Saṃghabhadra.
  • Explored the implications of their arguments within the four conditioned characteristics: production, succession, deterioration, and destruction.
  • Engaged with the Sautrāntika perspective to contextualize the debate.
  • Vasubandhu argues that conditioned dharmas lack intrinsic nature and only exist in the present moment.
  • Saṃghabhadra maintains that conditioned dharmas are real across all temporal states: past, present, and future.
  • The analysis reveals subtle ambiguities in both viewpoints, contributing to the understanding of early Buddhist metaphysical and temporal thought.

Abstract

Philosophical disagreements between Vasubandhu and Saṃghabhadra concerning the ontological status of conditioned dharma have introduced tension within Abhidharma philosophy. This study outlines their interpretations to explore how the ontological status of dharma is determined by analyzing its relationship with the four conditioned characteristics- production, succession, deterioration, and destruction. Vasubandhu challenges the notion of dharma’s intrinsic reality, arguing that conditioned dharmas and their conditioned characteristics lack an intrinsic nature and exert causal efficacy solely in the present moment. In contrast, Saṃghabhadra argues that the conditioned dharmas and their conditioned characteristics exist as real entities across past, present, and future. While critically engaging with Saṃghabhadra’s Sarvāstivādin ontology, this paper draws particular attention to the Sautrāntika conception of temporality, to contextualise this debate within the broader philosophical milieu of early Buddhism. Through a comparative analysis, this paper clarifies the subtle ambiguities within both philosophical standpoints, highlighting their significance for early Buddhist metaphysical and temporal thought. This approach seeks to view Abhidharma not just as an ontological debate, but as an analytical reflection on the momentary and interconnected nature of existence.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kumari et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a3f69a5aea7db3c19540517https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20849307
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1We Are All Ābhidharmika s: Troubling a Genre Distinction in Buddhist Intellectual History2026
  2. 2The Philosophical Foundation of Karma Doctrine in Abhidharma and Madhyamaka2025 · 1 citations
  3. 3Reconsidering the Relationship Between Sengzhao’s Things Do Not Shift and the Doctrine of Kṣaṇikavāda—With a Reassessment of Whether His Thought Reflects Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Doctrinal Affiliation2025
  4. 4Dual Structure and Paradigm Breakthrough: Reconstructing the Intellectual History of Dependent Origination in Sectarian Buddhism2025
  5. 5Is Shape Real? Controversies over the Nature and Reality of Shape in the Works of Vasubandhu and his Commentators2024