The Non-Self of Dharmas and the Contemplation of Emptiness in Abhidharmakośabhāṣya

Vasubandhu(世親), an Abhidharma scholar, summarized doctrinal characteristics of Buddhist teachings and specified the three marks of existence. Among them, the “non-self of all dharmas(諸法無我)” is an overall characteristic that encompasses conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas. <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic>, a representative treatise of Sarvāstivāda, also advocates the “non-self of all dharmas” as the final conclusion of the entire treatise. However, there are views that confuse the “non-self of all dharmas” in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> with the “emptiness of all dharmas(諸法皆空)” in Mahāyāna, and some fail to distinguish the “emptiness(空)” mentioned in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> from the “emptiness of all dharmas” in Mahāyāna. In this paper, based on traditional Chinese commentaries on <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic>, we will examine the content of the “non-self of all dharmas”, which is the final conclusion of the entire treatise. We will then examine differences between the “non-self of all dharmas” in Sarvāstivāda and the “emptiness of all dharmas” in Mahāyāna based on the doctrinal theories presented by major schools of Chinese Buddhism. We will further examine the characteristics of emptiness mentioned in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> based on the views of the traditional commentators and those of Saṃghabhadra(衆賢) and Zhimin(智敏). Through this, we will clarify that the “emptiness” in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> is not the “emptiness of all dharmas” in the Mahāyāna, but an extension of the “non-self of all dharmas”. Through this process, we hope to clearly distinguish the doctrinal differences between the “non-self of all dharmas” in Sarvastivada and the “emptiness of all dharmas” in Mahāyāna. In Chapter 1, we will examine the “non-self of all dharmas” in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic>, first looking at the final point of the entire treatise. The traditional three commentators and other commentators on <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> agree that the final point of the entire treatise is the “non-self of all dharmas”. Next, we will examine the main doctrinal theories of Chinese Buddhism. In the doctrinal theories of the Huayan(華嚴) School and the Faxiang(法相) School, Sarvāstivāda is defined as the “Dharma-only-no-self-kind.(法有我無宗)” According to this, the “non-self of all dharmas” in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic>, should be interpreted from the perspective of “self-emptiness(我空)” rather than “dharma-emptiness(法空)”. In Chapter 2, we will examine the “emptiness contemplation” in <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic>. <italic>Abhidharmakośabhāṣya</italic> mentions “emptiness contemplation” in the total contemplation of the four foundations of mindfulness, the four aspects(行相) of the truth of suffering among the sixteen aspects of the four truths, and the three doors of liberation. According to the traditional interpretation, the “emptiness” of Sarvāstivāda refers to “non-possession(無我所)”. This is different from the “emptiness” of Mahāyāna, which refers to “non-self-nature(無自性)” based on dependent origination. Next, we will examine the views of Saṃghabhadra(衆賢) and Zhimin(智敏) on the difference between “non-self” and “emptiness”. Saṃghabhadra(衆賢) interprets “not-self(非我) vs emptiness(空)” as “not-self(非我) vs non-self(無我)”, which is erroneous and can be resolved as “non-self(無我) vs non-possession(無我所)”. This shows that the “emptiness contemplation” of Sarvāstivāda is ultimately an extension of the “non-self of all dharmas”.