Buddhist scriptures under the rubric of buddhavacana, as vast and numerous as they are, are traditionally attributed to the Buddha. The raison d’être of the first chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Dhātunirdeśa, is to explain the aggregates (skandha), entrances (āyatana) and bases (dhātu). To explore the overlaps and differences between these three key concepts and their varied usages, Vasubandhu dedicates a section of this chapter (kārikās 1.25-26) to examining other lists that employ the same terminology while referring to seemingly different sets of entities such as dharmaskandha (dharma-aggregate; Ch. fǎyùn 法蘊), (This article specifically focuses on the dharmaskandha (Ch. 法蘊, fǎyùn), as referenced by Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh) 1-1.25/26, within the framework of the Sarvāstivāda tradition. Consequently, I have avoided delving into other overlapping terms found in texts from various traditions and perspectives, such as dharmakośa (Ch. 法藏, fǎzàng), dharmadvāra/dharmaparyāya (Ch. 法門, fǎmén), and dharmarāśi (Ch. 法聚, fǎjù). In my view, these terms and their implications would be better explored within a broader framework encompassing the different Buddhist schools and philosophies.) connecting them to buddhavacana. In this context, Vasubandhu elaborates on the concept of dharmaskandha in response to a question about how certain categories of dharmas—specifically, those mentioned as skandha, āyatana, and dhātu in the sūtras—should be classified. The question implies the existence of additional categories, such as dharmaskandha. Furthermore, Vasubandhu’s explanation indirectly addresses a broader and more complex issue: the scope and extent of the teachings the Buddha delivered during his lifetime. To understand the implications of the term dharmaskandha within the Sarvāstivāda tradition, I have provided annotated translations of discussions on dharmaskandha as found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (hereafter AKBh), its sub-commentary, the Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā (hereafter AKVy), and the relevant portion of the Mahāvibhāṣā (Āpídámó dà pípóshā lùn 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 T27) (hereafter MVŚ); the latter may have served as the source for Vasubandhu’s explanation in the AKBh. I have considered the views of Saṃghabhadra for two reasons: as both a witness and a source of critical appraisal (One could consider other Abhidharma texts within the Sarvāstivāda tradition to analyze this topic. However, I have limited the discussions within these three texts for the sake of brevity on the one hand, and because these texts, on the other hand, encompass both the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika perspective. The Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra (MVŚ) summarizes the positions of the seven Abhidharma texts of the Sarvāstivāda school, while Vasubandhu, along with Yaśomitra, addresses most of the other viewpoints, including those of the Sautrāntikas. Additionally, I have considered the position of Saṃghabhadra in his Āpídámó shùn zhènglǐ lùn 阿毘達磨順正理論 (Nyāyānusāra or Nyāyānusārin), a polemical text that frequently challenges Vasubandhu’s expositions in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh).). Furthermore, I have included a topical outline of the entire discussion as it unfolds in these texts.

The Concept of dharmaskandha (f

期刊论文
发表日期：

2026年4月21日

查看全文

Bibek Prasad Sharma

摘要

Buddhist scriptures under the rubric of buddhavacana, as vast and numerous as they are, are traditionally attributed to the Buddha. The raison d’être of the first chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Dhātunirdeśa, is to explain the aggregates (skandha), entrances (āyatana) and bases (dhātu). To explore the overlaps and differences between these three key concepts and their varied usages, Vasubandhu dedicates a section of this chapter (kārikās 1.25-26) to examining other lists that employ the same terminology while referring to seemingly different sets of entities such as dharmaskandha (dharma-aggregate; Ch. fǎyùn 法蘊), (This article specifically focuses on the dharmaskandha (Ch. 法蘊, fǎyùn), as referenced by Vasubandhu in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh) 1-1.25/26, within the framework of the Sarvāstivāda tradition. Consequently, I have avoided delving into other overlapping terms found in texts from various traditions and perspectives, such as dharmakośa (Ch. 法藏, fǎzàng), dharmadvāra/dharmaparyāya (Ch. 法門, fǎmén), and dharmarāśi (Ch. 法聚, fǎjù). In my view, these terms and their implications would be better explored within a broader framework encompassing the different Buddhist schools and philosophies.) connecting them to buddhavacana. In this context, Vasubandhu elaborates on the concept of dharmaskandha in response to a question about how certain categories of dharmas—specifically, those mentioned as skandha, āyatana, and dhātu in the sūtras—should be classified. The question implies the existence of additional categories, such as dharmaskandha. Furthermore, Vasubandhu’s explanation indirectly addresses a broader and more complex issue: the scope and extent of the teachings the Buddha delivered during his lifetime. To understand the implications of the term dharmaskandha within the Sarvāstivāda tradition, I have provided annotated translations of discussions on dharmaskandha as found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (hereafter AKBh), its sub-commentary, the Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā (hereafter AKVy), and the relevant portion of the *Mahāvibhāṣā (Āpídámó dà pípóshā lùn 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 T27) (hereafter MVŚ); the latter may have served as the source for Vasubandhu’s explanation in the AKBh. I have considered the views of Saṃghabhadra for two reasons: as both a witness and a source of critical appraisal (One could consider other Abhidharma texts within the Sarvāstivāda tradition to analyze this topic. However, I have limited the discussions within these three texts for the sake of brevity on the one hand, and because these texts, on the other hand, encompass both the Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika perspective. The *Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra (MVŚ) summarizes the positions of the seven Abhidharma texts of the Sarvāstivāda school, while Vasubandhu, along with Yaśomitra, addresses most of the other viewpoints, including those of the Sautrāntikas. Additionally, I have considered the position of Saṃghabhadra in his Āpídámó shùn zhènglǐ lùn 阿毘達磨順正理論 (*Nyāyānusāra or *Nyāyānusārin), a polemical text that frequently challenges Vasubandhu’s expositions in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh).). Furthermore, I have included a topical outline of the entire discussion as it unfolds in these texts.