Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Dharmas in post-canonical Abhidharma literature are defin... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Dharmas in post-canonical Abhidharma literature are defined by their svabhāva (intrinsic nature)

    Philosophy of LanguageProof of definition segments
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya defines dharma as 'upholding intrinsic nature (svabhāva)'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Mahāvibhāṣā states that intrinsic nature upholds its own identity and does not lose it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Theravādin Abhidhamma commentaries define dhammas as bearing their intrinsic natures or being borne by causal conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Vasubandhu's Yogācāra works argue that dharmas lack fixed svabhāva, arising only through dependent designation (prajñapti), undermining intrinsic nature claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If svabhāva were truly intrinsic and self-sustaining, dharmas could not participate in causal relations, yet Abhidharma systematically catalogs their causal functions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that Sarvāstivādin svabhāva-language commits Abhidharmikas to a form of svabhāva-dṛṣṭi (reification) the Buddha explicitly rejected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Pāli Nikāyas define dhammas functionally and contextually, not through intrinsic natures, suggesting post-canonical svabhāva definitions represent doctrinal innovation, not recovery.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageProof of definition segments

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge3 linkedPersonal Identity1 linked

    Related

    Candrakīrti's Prasannapadā demonstrates that Sarvāstivādin svabhāva-language com...If svabhāva were truly intrinsic and self-sustaining, dharmas could not particip...The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya defines dharma as 'upholding intrinsic nature (svabhāva...The Mahāvibhāṣā states that intrinsic nature upholds its own identity and does n...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Pāli Nikāyas define dhammas functionally and contextually, not through intri...Theravādin Abhidhamma commentaries define dhammas as bearing their intrinsic nat...Vasubandhu's Yogācāra works argue that dharmas lack fixed svabhāva, arising only...

    Similar

    Svabhāva becomes a standard concept only in post-canonical exegetical ...77%The concept of svabhāva as defining dharmas is a post-canonical develo...76%Rare mentions of svabhāva in Sarvāstivāda and Theravāda canonical text...75%Dharmas are determined (pariniṣpanna) by the intrinsic nature that def...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: abhidharma
    View source passageHide passage
    The term svabhāva/sabhāva does not feature in the sūtras/suttas and its rare mentions in other Sarvāstivāda and Theravāda canonical texts offer no account of dharma as defined by a fixed intrinsic nature that verifies its real existence.[11] This situation changes significantly in the post-canonical literature, in which svabhāva becomes a standard concept extensively used in dharma exegesis. A recurring idea in the exegetical Abhidharma literature from the period of the early vibhāṣā compendia
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit