Treasury of Abhidharma

1. Introduction

The Abhidharmakośa (“Treasury of Abhidharma”) and Vasubandhu’s own Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (prose commentary) together form one of the most influential works of Buddhist scholastic philosophy. Composed in Sanskrit verse with an attached explanation, the text presents a systematic survey of Abhidharma doctrines—classifications of phenomena, cosmology, psychology, ethics, and the path to liberation—while simultaneously subjecting many of those doctrines to critical examination.

The work’s dual character is central to its identity. On the one hand, the verse core functions as a concise handbook of primarily Sarvāstivāda‑Vaibhāṣika Abhidharma, arranging scattered canonical and commentarial materials into a coherent system. On the other hand, the bhāṣya frequently advances positions associated with Sautrāntika interpreters, who privilege the sūtras and question key Sarvāstivāda theses such as the claim that “all exists” (sarvam asti).

Because of this combination of exposition and critique, the Abhidharmakośa became a shared reference point for a wide range of Buddhist schools. It was used not only by Sarvāstivādins and Sautrāntikas, but also by later Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, and Buddhist epistemological authors, who cited and debated its analyses of dharmas, karma, personhood, and nirvāṇa.

In East Asia and Tibet, the work’s translations entered monastic curricula as the standard compendium of Abhidharma theory. Commentators in these regions treated Vasubandhu’s verses and glosses as the basis for extensive doctrinal systems, sometimes aligning them with Mahāyāna perspectives and sometimes reading them as representative of earlier non‑Mahāyāna scholasticism.

Modern scholarship generally regards the Abhidharmakośa as a key source for reconstructing later Indian Abhidharma thought. At the same time, researchers note that its presentation of Sarvāstivāda doctrine is filtered through Vasubandhu’s own critical lens, requiring careful comparison with other sources.

2. Historical and Doctrinal Context

The Abhidharmakośa emerged in a North Indian scholastic environment shaped by centuries of Abhidharma development. By Vasubandhu’s time (c. 4th–5th century CE), schools such as Sarvāstivāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Mahāsāṃghika had produced extensive analytical treatises systematizing the Buddha’s teachings into lists of dharmas and elaborate causal schemes.

Position within Sarvāstivāda Tradition

Vasubandhu’s primary doctrinal background is generally identified as Sarvāstivāda, especially the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣika line that upheld the massive Mahāvibhāṣā commentary as authoritative. Their hallmark doctrine, sarvam asti (“all exists”), maintains that dharmas of past, present, and future exist in some sense to account for causal continuity and karmic retribution. The Abhidharmakośa verses largely summarize this system, especially its classifications of aggregates, sense‑fields, elements, and mental factors.

Emergence of Sautrāntika Critique

At the same time, alternative currents labeled Sautrāntika emphasized reliance on sūtras and argued that only present dharmas truly exist, with past and future treated as conceptual or causal designations. Many of Vasubandhu’s arguments in the bhāṣya are aligned with these Sautrāntika positions, particularly in matters of time, perception, and the mechanics of karma.

Relation to Earlier and Later Developments

The Abhidharmakośa stands at a transitional moment between:

Doctrinally, the work presupposes:

• A mature Abhidharma ontology of momentary dharmas with intrinsic natures (svabhāva)
• A highly stratified cosmology and theory of meditative attainments
• An elaborate schema of path stages and defilement eradication

Later traditions mined the Abhidharmakośa for both positive doctrines and points of departure. Yogācārins adapted its psychology and karmic theory, while Madhyamikas challenged its realist assumptions about dharmas, using it as a foil for arguments about emptiness (śūnyatā).

3. Author and Composition of the Abhidharmakośa

Vasubandhu: Biographical Outline and Debates

Traditional sources depict Vasubandhu as a North Indian monk and polymath from the region of Puruṣapura (modern Peshawar), active in the 4th–5th centuries CE. He is credited in later doxographies with multiple phases of thought: an early Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma phase, a Sautrāntika‑leaning critical phase, and a subsequent Yogācāra/Mahāyāna period.

Modern scholars broadly accept his Abhidharma training and later Yogācāra output, but debate:

• The exact sequence of his works
• Whether the Abhidharma Vasubandhu and the Yogācāra Vasubandhu are the same person (a minority view questions this identity)
• How far the Abhidharmakośa already anticipates Yogācāra themes

Circumstances and Purpose of Composition

Traditional accounts relate that Vasubandhu composed the kārikās as a compact restatement of Sarvāstivāda doctrine. Some narratives say he did so in a non‑Kashmiri Sarvāstivāda milieu (e.g., Gandhāra) and later encountered the Kashmiri Vaibhāṣika orthodoxy, prompting him to add the bhāṣya to clarify and sometimes criticize the doctrines he had versified.

Scholars generally agree that:

• The verses and auto‑commentary form a unified project, though possibly not written at the same time.
• The bhāṣya reflects a position more critical of Sarvāstivāda than the verses alone, often introducing Sautrāntika counter‑arguments.

Dating and Literary Form

The composition is usually dated between c. 390–420 CE, based on relative chronology with contemporaries (such as Asaṅga and early Yogācāra works) and the dates of Chinese translations.

The literary structure is distinctive:

This layered format allowed later traditions to read the work either as a Sarvāstivāda summary (emphasizing the verses) or as a site of intra‑Abhidharma debate (emphasizing the bhāṣya).

4. Textual History and Manuscript Tradition

Indian Transmission and Loss of the Sanskrit Autograph

No autograph of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya survives. The Sanskrit text is preserved through later manuscript copies, many fragmentary or corrupt, discovered mainly in Nepal and Central Asia. Modern critical editions, notably that of P. Pradhan (1967), reconstruct the text by collating these manuscripts with Tibetan and Chinese translations.

Scholars note that the transmission history is complex:

• Variants in chapter divisions and verse ordering occur in some manuscripts.
• Occasional discrepancies appear between Sanskrit and its translations, leaving certain readings uncertain.

Chinese and Tibetan Translations

Early and relatively complete translations play a central role in establishing the text:

State of the Manuscript Tradition

The overall state of preservation can be summarized as:

Text‑critical work continues to refine readings, especially where doctrinal nuances hinge on small linguistic details (e.g., terms relating to temporal existence, unconditioned dharmas, or karmic mechanisms).

5. Structure and Organization of the Nine Chapters

The Abhidharmakośa is organized into nine chapters (prakaraṇas), each addressing a major thematic domain of Abhidharma. The structure moves from ontology and classification to ethics, causality, and finally soteriology.

Overview of Chapters

Internal Organization and Cross‑References

Each chapter is composed of:

• Kārikās in metrical form, often grouped into sub‑sections by topic
• Bhāṣya passages that gloss verses, introduce objections, and present alternative views

Vasubandhu frequently cross‑references earlier or later chapters. For example:

• Chapter 1’s ontology underlies the karmic analysis in Chapter 4 and the path theory in Chapter 6.
• The discussion of conditioned factors and temporal existence in Chapter 5 informs the presentation of knowledge (Chapter 7) and debates over nirvāṇa (linked to unconditioned dharmas first introduced in Chapter 1).

This systematic layout allows readers to trace how basic ontological categories support the subsequent theories of karma, cognition, and liberation.

6. Ontological Framework: Dharmas, Aggregates, and Elements

The Abhidharmakośa advances an ontological scheme in which dharmas are the fundamental units of analysis. They replace enduring substances or selves as basic explanatory items.

Dharmas and Their Status

Dharmas are understood as:

• Momentary: arising and ceasing instant by instant.
• Possessing an intrinsic nature (svabhāva) that makes each type of dharma what it is (e.g., feeling, perception, consciousness).
• Divided into conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta).

Vasubandhu reports the Sarvāstivāda view that at least three unconditioned dharmas exist (e.g., space, two types of cessation), but he also notes alternative positions that treat some or all of these as conceptual designations rather than ontologically real.

Aggregates, Sense Bases, and Elements

The framework organizes dharmas via three overlapping taxonomies:

In Dhātunirdeśa (Chapter 1), Vasubandhu employs these schemes to show that everything classified as a “being” or “world” can be reduced to dharmas arranged under these headings.

Conditioned versus Unconditioned

The conditioned/unconditioned distinction is central:

• Conditioned dharmas depend on causes and conditions, exhibit impermanence, and form the domain of saṃsāra.
• Unconditioned dharmas lack causal production and serve as the ontological basis for cessation (nirvāṇa) and certain absences (e.g., space in Sarvāstivāda).

The bhāṣya explores disagreements about how many unconditioned dharmas there are and whether they should be regarded as truly existing entities or as negative descriptions of the absence of conditioned phenomena.

7. Karma, Causality, and Temporal Existence

The Abhidharmakośa devotes substantial analysis to karma (karman), causal relations, and the ontological status of past, present, and future dharmas, especially in Karmanirdeśa (Chapter 4) and Saṃskāranirdeśa (Chapter 5).

Karma and Its Results

Vasubandhu classifies karma as intentional action of body, speech, or mind, distinguishing between:

• Projected karma that leads directly to future rebirth and major life circumstances.
• Completing karma that shapes specific experiences within a given existence.

He presents Sarvāstivāda accounts of how karmic actions generate results (vipāka) often long after the original deed, and then examines alternative explanations (especially Sautrāntika) involving latent seeds (bīja) or capacities (śakti) stored in the mental continuum.

Types of Causal Conditions

The text details several categories of causation, such as:

These categories structure the explanation of how complex mental and physical events arise without positing a permanent self.

Temporal Existence and the “All Exists” Debate

A pivotal doctrinal issue is the temporal mode of existence of dharmas:

• Sarvāstivāda‑Vaibhāṣika position (as presented in the verses) holds that dharmas in the three times—past, present, future—exist in some real sense (sarvam asti). This is said to secure the objectivity of memory, anticipation, and karmic retribution.
• Sautrāntika‑style critique (articulated in the bhāṣya) maintains that only present dharmas exist. Past and future are treated as non‑existent or merely conceptual, while karmic continuity is explained through persisting traces or seeds within a stream of momentary present events.

Vasubandhu carefully records arguments for both:

The resulting analysis becomes a central reference for later debates on time and causality in Buddhist philosophy.

8. Analysis of the Person and Non-Self Doctrine

The Abhidharmakośa provides a systematic examination of personhood and the doctrine of non‑self (anātman), especially in Dhātunirdeśa (Chapter 1) and Pudgalanirdeśa (Chapter 9).

Person as Conceptual Designation

Vasubandhu aligns with mainstream Abhidharma in holding that what is conventionally called a person (pudgala) is a merely conceptual designation (prajñapti) on the basis of the five aggregates. He illustrates this with analogies (echoing earlier texts) in which composites—such as a chariot—are designated on parts without an additional entity being found.

"

“There is no person distinct from the aggregates; the term ‘person’ is based on them as its support.”

— Attributed sense from Vasubandhu, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Pudgalanirdeśa

Critique of Substantialist Pudgalavāda Views

Chapter 9 targets Pudgalavāda theories, which posit a pudgala that is neither identical with nor completely different from the aggregates, often to explain moral responsibility and continuity across rebirth. Vasubandhu reports their claims and arguments—for example, that a pudgala must underlie the appropriation of karma and experiences—before offering refutations based on logical and doctrinal grounds.

He argues that:

• If the pudgala is distinct from aggregates, it becomes a permanent self, contradicting core Buddhist teachings.
• If it is not distinct, there is no need to posit it beyond the aggregates themselves.

Continuity Without a Self

To explain continuity of experience and responsibility without a substantial self, the Abhidharmakośa appeals to:

• The causal series of momentary dharmas, particularly consciousness and mental factors.
• The notion of a stream (santāna) in which earlier moments condition later ones, allowing memory, appropriation of karma, and identity attribution without a fixed entity underlying them.

Competing views within the text include:

Vasubandhu’s exposition thus links the non‑self doctrine to the broader Abhidharma analysis of aggregates, causality, and karmic series.

9. Meditation, Knowledge, and the Path to Liberation

The Abhidharmakośa treats meditation (bhāvanā), knowledge (jñāna), and the path (mārga) as interlocking aspects of liberation, chiefly in Mārgapudgalanirdeśa (Chapter 6), Jñānanirdeśa (Chapter 7), and Samāpattinirdeśa (Chapter 8).

Stages of the Path

Vasubandhu presents a graded path structured by:

• The thirty‑seven factors conducive to awakening (e.g., four foundations of mindfulness, eightfold path).
• The standard four fruits of śrāvaka liberation: stream‑enterer, once‑returner, non‑returner, arhat.
• Detailed lists of defilements (kleśas) to be abandoned at each stage.

The path is mapped in terms of insight into the four noble truths, with precise correlations between specific defilements and specific levels of insight.

Forms of Knowledge

Chapter 7 classifies various kinds of knowledge:

Vasubandhu discusses criteria for valid cognition, including the correct apprehension of dharmas and the elimination of cognitive distortions rooted in ignorance.

Meditative Attainments and Their Role

In Chapter 8, Vasubandhu outlines:

• The four dhyānas (form absorptions)
• The four formless attainments (ārūpya‑samāpattis)
• The cessation of perception and feeling (saṃjñāvedayitanirodha)

He describes their prerequisites, associated mental factors, and ethical status. The text records differing opinions on whether certain attainments are necessarily wholesome or can be ethically neutral.

A key theme is the distinction between:

The Abhidharmakośa frames liberation as the progressive eradication of specific kleśas through the union of these two aspects, culminating in nirvāṇa as cessation of defilements and suffering.

10. Key Concepts and Technical Terminology

The Abhidharmakośa employs a dense technical vocabulary. Certain terms are pivotal for understanding its analyses and debates.

Core Ontological and Psychological Terms

Causality and Karma

Soteriological and Epistemic Concepts

Designation, Existence, and Time

The interplay of these terms underlies the systematic exposition of phenomena, ethics, and liberation throughout the nine chapters.

11. Famous Debates and Doctrinal Controversies

The Abhidharmakośa is a key locus for several influential intra‑Buddhist debates. Vasubandhu’s bhāṣya often stages multiple viewpoints before offering his own assessment.

Existence in the Three Times (Sarvam Asti)

A central controversy opposes:

Vasubandhu details arguments about whether temporal difference is grounded in intrinsic nature or in relational properties such as causal activity.

Nature and Number of Unconditioned Dharmas

Another debate concerns which unconditioned dharmas should be posited:

• Vaibhāṣika view: Typically accepts several unconditioned dharmas (e.g., space, two cessations).
• Alternative positions: Some schools recognize only nirvāṇa as unconditioned; others treat items like “space” as conceptual absences rather than real entities.

The bhāṣya records disputes over whether an unconditioned dharma can have a definable nature without being produced.

Self, Person, and Pudgala

In Pudgalanirdeśa, Vasubandhu rehearses arguments with Pudgalavādins, who posit an ineffable pudgala. He contrasts:

Status of Meditative Attainments

Chapter 8 conveys disagreements about:

• Whether certain dhyānas and formless states are always wholesome or may be ethically neutral.
• The precise relation between deep concentration and liberating insight.

Some commentators emphasize the indispensability of insight, while others underline the transformative role of absorption.

These debates made the Abhidharmakośa a central text for later scholastic controversies, with different schools appealing to it either as an authority or as a foil for their own positions.

12. Philosophical Method and Use of Commentary

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is notable not only for its doctrines but also for its methodological style, which combines concise versification with dialogical commentary.

Verses as Systematic Blueprint

The kārikās present a highly compressed systematization of Abhidharma doctrine. Their aphoristic style:

• Facilitates memorization for monastic study.
• Organizes material into logically ordered topics (dharmas, faculties, world, karma, etc.).
• Often states Sarvāstivāda positions without explicit qualification, serving as a doctrinal baseline.

Bhāṣya as Arena of Debate

The bhāṣya functions as a running scholastic dialogue. Vasubandhu:

• Introduces unnamed interlocutors (“it is objected,” “some say”) to present rival arguments.
• Distinguishes school positions (e.g., Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Pudgalavāda) by reporting their rationales.
• Engages in consequence analysis (prasaṅga) and logical testing of coherence, sometimes showing affinities with later Madhyamaka and epistemological methods.

This structure enables readers to see how specific doctrinal claims respond to objections and fit within larger patterns of reasoning.

Hermeneutical Orientation

Methodologically, the Kośa:

• Draws extensively on prior Abhidharma treatises (especially the Jñānaprasthāna and Mahāvibhāṣā), often summarizing or re‑arranging their content.
• Appeals to sūtra citations to support or challenge Abhidharma positions, aligning with Sautrāntika tendencies in parts of the commentary.
• Employs fine‑grained linguistic and conceptual analysis, for example distinguishing multiple senses of “existence,” “cessation,” or “space.”

Later Commentarial Engagement

Subsequent commentators, such as Yaśomitra, Sthiramati, and Tibetan exegetes, adopt and extend this method:

Thus, the Abhidharmakośa becomes both a model and a platform for scholastic method in later Buddhist traditions.

13. Reception in India, Tibet, and East Asia

India

In India, the Abhidharmakośa quickly became a central Abhidharma text:

• Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins valued its systematic clarity but objected to aspects of Vasubandhu’s Sautrāntika critiques.
• Sautrāntika‑leaning authors drew on Vasubandhu’s arguments, especially against sarvam asti, seeing the Kośa as a key ally.
• Later Yogācāra and Madhyamaka thinkers cited it as the standard expression of Abhidharma positions to be developed or critiqued.

Commentaries such as Yaśomitra’s Abhidharmakośavyākhyā attest to its central place in Indian scholastic curricula.

Tibet

In Tibet, the Kośa, mainly through its Tibetan translation, became the primary Abhidharma textbook across schools:

Tibetan scholars produced numerous commentaries and study guides, often interpreting Vasubandhu through the lens of Madhyamaka or Yogācāra while preserving his analytic categories as indispensable for early doctrinal training.

East Asia (China, Korea, Japan)

In East Asia, particularly via Xuanzang’s translation, the Apidamo jushe lun became foundational:

• In China, it influenced both Abhidharma schools and the Faxiang (Yogācāra) tradition, with commentators such as Kuiji integrating Kośa doctrines into wider Yogācāra frameworks.
• Korean and Japanese traditions, especially Hossō in Japan, studied the Kośa alongside Yogācāra texts, viewing it as essential background for understanding consciousness‑only theory.
• Some Chinese exegetes also used the Kośa as a foil when advocating Mahāyāna positions that questioned Abhidharma realism about dharmas.

Across these regions, the text functioned simultaneously as:

• A curricular manual for basic doctrinal training.
• A source of authoritative Abhidharma categories.
• A target for critique when later schools advanced alternative ontologies, epistemologies, or soteriologies.

14. Modern Scholarship, Translations, and Editions

Critical Editions

Modern scholarship on the Abhidharmakośa relies heavily on critical editions of the Sanskrit and on canonical translations:

Scholars continue to refine readings where manuscripts and translations diverge, using philological and doctrinal criteria.

Major Translations

Significant modern translations include:

The classical Chinese (Xuanzang) and Tibetan translations remain authoritative and are frequently consulted by contemporary researchers.

Themes in Modern Research

Modern academic studies address:

• Doctrinal reconstruction: Using the Kośa to reconstruct Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika positions, while debating how far Vasubandhu’s presentation is representative.
• Philosophical analysis: Investigations into the Kośa’s theories of time, causation, personal identity, and meditation, often comparing them with contemporary analytic or phenomenological philosophy.
• Historical placement: Discussions about Vasubandhu’s intellectual development and the relation of the Kośa to his Yogācāra works.
• Intertextual studies: Comparison with Pāli Abhidhamma, with later Yogācāra‑Madhyamaka syntheses, and with non‑Buddhist Indian philosophies.

Some scholars question whether Vasubandhu is fairly representing Vaibhāṣika doctrine, arguing that polemical aims may have shaped his exposition. Others explore how later traditions re‑interpreted the Kośa to align it with their own systems.

Overall, the text serves as a focal point for cross‑disciplinary research in philology, history of ideas, and comparative philosophy.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Abhidharmakośa has exerted a lasting impact on Buddhist intellectual history and on modern understandings of Buddhist philosophy.

Doctrinal and Curricular Influence

Across India, Tibet, and East Asia, the Kośa functioned as:

• The standard Abhidharma compendium, shaping how generations of monks and scholars understood dharmas, karma, and the path.
• A bridge between non‑Mahāyāna Abhidharma and later Mahāyāna systems, providing shared technical vocabulary and conceptual scaffolding.

Tibetan and East Asian scholastic curricula continue to treat it as a core text for foundational training.

Role in Later Philosophical Developments

The work became a reference point for:

Thus, the Kośa stands at the crossroads of multiple doctrinal trajectories.

Modern Philosophical and Historical Significance

For modern scholars, the Abhidharmakośa is:

• A primary source for later Indian Abhidharma, especially Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika.
• An exemplar of systematic philosophy in classical India, notable for its internal debates and logical argumentation.
• A key text for comparative studies on topics such as momentariness, personal identity without a self, causal explanation, and meditative phenomenology.

At the same time, critical perspectives highlight that the Kośa offers a partially homogenized and sometimes polemical picture of earlier traditions. This dual nature—as both a treasury of doctrine and a situated intervention—has made it an enduring object of study and an indispensable reference for understanding the evolution of Buddhist thought.