Work #74
Abhidharmakośa
Treasury of the Abhidharma — Vasubandhu's encyclopedic systematisation of Sarvāstivāda Buddhist philosophy
Vasubandhu
· c. 4th–5th century AD
· Sanskrit (lost; preserved in Tibetan and Chinese translations)
· Verse text in eight chapters with prose auto-commentary (bhāṣya)
Tradition: Sarvāstivāda Buddhism / Abhidharma
The systematic catalogue of dharmas — moments of experience as the irreducible elements of reality
The Abhidharmakośa is Vasubandhu's encyclopedic summary of the Sarvāstivāda school of Abhidharma — the analytical phase of Buddhist philosophy that classifies all experience into discrete momentary dharmas (mental and physical "events" or "factors"). Across eight chapters the work treats the elements (dhātus), the senses, the sphere of conditioned existence, karma, the latent tendencies, the path of practice, the higher knowledges, and the meditative attainments. Vasubandhu later converted to Yogācāra and wrote major works in that tradition; the Kośa, with his own bhāṣya, remains the most influential premodern Buddhist philosophical systematisation, central to Tibetan monastic curricula and East Asian Buddhist scholasticism.
Author
Editions cited
- Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu (Louis de la Vallée Poussin, French; English by Leo Pruden, Asian Humanities Press, 1988)
- The Treasury of the Abhidharma (Erich Frauwallner, 1995; partial)
School Embodiments
Buddhism
50%
The Kośa is the most influential premodern systematic statement of Buddhist Abhidharma philosophy across schools — Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, and the Mahāyāna traditions all engage it.
"All conditioned things are momentary." (Abhidharmakośa 4.2)
The Kośa is one of the core texts in every Tibetan monastic curriculum. Even the Vajrayāna tantric tradition treats it as foundational for systematic understanding of the path.
"The path of seeing is the threshold of liberation." (Abhidharmakośa 6.18, paraphrasing)
East Asian Pure Land traditions read the Kośa as foundational analysis even as they emphasise devotional practice over abhidharmic analysis.
"The meditative attainments are the field of preparation." (Abhidharmakośa 8, paraphrasing)
Yogacara
15%
Vasubandhu himself converted to Yogācāra; his later works (Viṃśatikā, Triṃśikā) develop the consciousness-only metaphysics in dialogue with the Abhidharma framework set out here.
"Mind is the maker of all things; the world is mind's projection." (paraphrasing the Yogācāra development of Kośa Chapter 1)
The Abhidharma doctrine of moment-by-moment arising of dharmas has been read by modern comparative philosophers (Stcherbatsky, Whitehead's school) as a sophisticated Indian process metaphysics.
"At each moment a new arising occurs." (Abhidharmakośa 2.45, on momentariness)
Modern Buddhist studies (Mark Siderits, Jay Garfield) read the Kośa as an Indian counterpart to analytic metaphysics — systematic, technical, concerned with the basic categories of existence.
"Dharmas are real, persons are conventional." (Abhidharmakośa 9, on the refutation of the personalist heresy)
Mahayana-Buddhist tradition.
Internal Tensions
Vasubandhu's own apparent conversion from Sarvāstivāda to Yogācāra has been disputed by some recent scholars (Frauwallner argued for two Vasubandhus; most contemporary scholarship treats them as one). The Kośa's realism about momentary dharmas is in tension with the Madhyamaka critique of intrinsic nature; the long history of inter-school dispute fills the commentarial tradition.
⧖
I. Time
Time is discrete in the strong Abhidharmic sense — an indefinitely fine succession of momentary dharmas. The doctrine of momentariness (kṣaṇikatva) is one of the Kośa's central contributions. Saṃsāra is cyclic and unbeginningless.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Relational
Grain: Discrete
Freedom: Deterministic
Traversability: Cyclical
Direction: Uni-directional
Dimensionality: One
✦
II. Space
Space is one of the unconditioned dharmas, treated as a real relational structure within which conditioned dharmas arise.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Relational
Curvature: Undefined
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Local
◉
III. Matter
Material atoms (paramāṇu) are the basic material building blocks — momentary, indivisible, relational. Vasubandhu critiques the atomist position from a Yogācāra direction in his later work.
Attributes
Extent: Finite
Ontological Status: Relational
Conservation: Non-conserved
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Local
◎
IV. Observer
There is no enduring self — only a stream of momentary mental dharmas. Conventional persons are real for practical purposes; ultimate analysis shows them to be the bundle. Active in the path, plural in the conventional sense.
Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple
Space Instance: Single
Knowledge Extent: Total
Knowledge Retainment: Total
Physicality: Embodied
Agency: Active
Number: Plural
Metaphysical Agency: None
⚡
V. Energy
Karmic momentum is the central energetic principle, irreversible until extinguished by liberation.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Emergent
Conservation: Non-conserved
Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉
VI. Information
Karmic-saṃskāric patterns carry across lives; this is conventional personal-information conservation. At the level of the dharmas there is no substantival information, only the patterned arising.
Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational
Cosmic Conservation: Non-conserved
Personal Conservation: Conserved
Granularity: Discrete
Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint
Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.
Computed school proximity
The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.
How Abhidharmakośa resolves each dilemma
48 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 32 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 9 unaligned.
Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.
Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree
(18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) ·
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) ·
Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree
(18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) ·
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) ·
Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree
(18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) ·
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) ·
Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 17% of schools agree
(35/202)
How much weight do future people deserve?
If a billion people will exist in the 25th century, do their interests count for as much as the interests of a billion people alive now? The answer turns on what kind of reality the future has.
Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course.
On these views, time is not a one-way arrow but a structure of return: cosmic cycles, karmic cycles, the seasons, the succession of generations. To act now is always also to act for the ancestors who shaped your inheritance and for the descendants who will …
Roads not taken
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. (47%) ·
Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. (32%) ·
The future branches — what we owe depends on which branch we create. (2%)
Distinctive · only 17% of schools agree
(35/202)
Is regret rational?
If the past is fixed and unchangeable, what kind of mental act is regret? An error, a duty, a lesson, a perspective on a moment that is still in some sense present?
The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle.
On cyclical views, the past is not a fixed thing behind you — it is part of the ongoing structure of return: karmic cycles, cosmic cycles, the cycle of seasons and generations. Regret, on these views, is less about an unchangeable past and more about …
Roads not taken
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. (47%) ·
The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. (32%) ·
Other branches exist; regret tracks roads not taken that are nonetheless real. (2%)
4 mainstream positions
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors.
17%
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing.
47%
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time.
47%
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide.
47%
Matter · 7 dilemmas · 4 distinctive
What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
On relational views, money is not a substance you have; it is a record of who owes whom what. Debts and credits are real because the relations they track are real — to kin, to community, to ancestors, to land. Money is the form this …
Roads not taken
Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) ·
Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) ·
“Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
On relational views, the nation is the relational fabric — extended kinship, ancestral inheritance, shared ecology, communal practice — that hosts a people across generations. Borders matter less than belonging; lineage and land carry the weight that political structures only ratify.
Roads not taken
A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) ·
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) ·
“Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
On relational views, identity is not a property a person has alone; it is constituted by the web of recognition the person sits in. What makes someone a man or a woman in any thick sense is the relations of kinship, community, ritual, and recognition …
Roads not taken
Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) ·
Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) ·
“Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will …
Roads not taken
Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) ·
The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) ·
'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(26/202)
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight of a promise made to someone now gone — these all presuppose that the dead are present in some sense beyond memory. Whether they are turns on whether an observer is the kind of thing that exists in a single moment or across many.
Observers span moments; the dead are present in a real (not merely metaphorical) way.
On this view, an observer is not located at a single moment but extends across moments. The dead, on this signature, are not gone — they are elsewhere on the same trans-temporal structure that you yourself occupy. Ancestor veneration, intercession with saints, the moral weight …
Roads not taken
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. (44%) ·
The dead are present through divine memory, communion of saints, or ancestor presence. (35%) ·
From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(26/202)
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
If God knows what you will do tomorrow, does your tomorrow-self choose freely? The classical problem of foreknowledge turns on whether the divine vantage stands outside time or inside it.
An observer can occupy multiple times at once; foreknowledge is not foreordering.
On this view, observers can in principle exist in more than one moment simultaneously — and divine omniscience is exactly the case of an observer occupying all moments at once. The future actions God 'foresees' aren't foreseen at all in the temporal sense; God simply …
Roads not taken
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. (46%) ·
The human observer is in time, but God's vantage is not — and foreknowledge is not foreordering. (33%) ·
Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(26/202)
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Contemplative traditions across cultures report that sustained attention reveals a level at which time as ordinary experience knows it does not apply. Whether the report is a real glimpse or a real misdescription depends on what observers can in principle be.
Meditation accesses a trans-temporal level the ordinary observer doesn't ordinarily reach.
On this view, observers can in principle exist in more than one moment, and meditation is the practice that opens that capacity. What's reported as 'timeless' is the experience of occupying moments at once — the trans-temporal mode the observer always could have inhabited but …
Roads not taken
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. (46%) ·
Meditation participates in a real eternity — divine or cosmic — that the bounded human observer ordinarily cannot reach. (33%) ·
The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(26/202)
Does prayer change God's mind?
When you petition God for something, are you addressing a personal agent who hears and responds, participating in eternal providence, attuning yourself to what already is, or doing something that doesn't quite map onto petition?
Prayer participates in a trans-temporal liturgy or communion; the question of 'changing the mind' misses the trans-temporal mode.
On this view, the addressee of prayer — and the petitioner participating in prayer — can occupy more than one moment at once. Prayer isn't an instant of message-passing across a temporal gap; it is participation in a trans-temporal mode in which every moment of …
Roads not taken
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. (46%) ·
God sees from outside time; prayer doesn't change God's mind, but it is part of how providence is enacted. (33%) ·
Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement. (8%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) ·
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) ·
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
26 mainstream positions
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
13%
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
13%
What makes someone the same person over time?
There was never a fixed self to either preserve or lose.
14%
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
There was no fixed person to lose; care is owed to whoever is here.
14%
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
There was no fixed you to either survive or fail to; the question is malformed.
14%
When does a person begin?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
15%
What is marriage?
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
15%
What is our place in nature?
Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world.
15%
Should we colonize space?
Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking.
15%
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow.
15%
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Loss is part of cycles; what disappears returns in another form.
17%
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilization rises and falls in cycles; recovery is structural to history.
17%
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Local entropy increase is part of a cycle; the moral category is participation in the cycle.
17%
Could causation work backwards?
Time is structured as return; 'forward' and 'backward' are local features of the cycle.
17%
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
Memory and anticipation are phases of a cycle that visits both directions.
17%
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
Within a cycle there is a direction; across the cycle there isn't.
17%
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
18%
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally.
50%
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
49%
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
49%
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog.
28%
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge.
28%
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply.
28%
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters.
15%
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Talk of 'standing' presupposes fixed selves that animals (and we) don't have.
10%
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Asking whether the organoid is 'really' conscious presupposes a category we don't have.
10%
6 unaligned
Does history have a direction or meaning?
Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19%
—
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13%
—
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4%
—
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10%
—
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14%
—
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14%
—
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it.
39%
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access.
39%
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible.
39%
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was.
39%