 not hold that dharmas were completely independent of each other, as the Mahavibhasa states: "conditioned dharmas are weak in their intrinsic nature, they can accomplish their activities only through mutual dependence" and "they have no sovereignty (aisvarya). They are dependent on others." Svabhava in the early Abhidhamma texts was then not a term which meant ontological independence, metaphysical essence or underlying substance, but simply referred to their characteristics, which are dependent on other conditions and qualities. According to Ronkin: "In the early Sarvāstivāda exegetical texts, then, svabhāva is used as an atemporal, invariable criterion determining what a dharma is, not necessarily that a dharma exists. The concern here is primarily with what makes categorial types of dharma unique, rather than with the ontological status of dharmas." However, in the later Sarvastivada texts, like the Mahavibhasa, the term svabhava began to be defined more ontologically as the really existing “intrinsic nature” specifying individual dharmas.

Other Abhidharma schools did not accept the svabhava concept. The 'Prajñaptivadins' denied the ultimate reality of all dharmas and held that everything, even dharmas, is characterized by Prajñapti (provisional designation or fictitious construction). The Vainasikas held that all dharmas were without svabhava. This view that dharmas are empty or void is also found in the Lokanuvartana Sutra (‘The Sutra of Conformity with the World’) which survives in Chinese and Tibetan translation, and may have been a scripture of the Purvasailas, which was a sub-school of the Mahasamghika.

Causality and dependent origination
Another important project for the Abhidharmikas was to outline a theory of causality, especially of how momentary dharmas relate to each other through causes and conditions.

The Sarvastivadin analysis focused on six causes (hetu), four conditions (pratyaya) and five effects (phala). According to K.L. Dhammajoti, for the Sarvastivada school, 'causal efficacy is the central criterion for the reality/existence (astitva) of a d
not hold that dharmas were completely independent of each early, as the Mahavibhasa express: " conditioned dharmas are fallible in their intrinsic nature, they can achieve their activities only through reciprocal addiction " and " they have no sovereignty (aisvarya). They are dependent on others. " Svabhava in the early Abhidhamma texts was then not a term which intend ontological independence, metaphysical essence or underlying meaning, but plainly referred to their characteristics, which are dependent on other conditions and quality. According to Ronkin: " In the early Sarvāstivāda exegetical texts, then, svabhāva is use as an atemporal, invariable criterion determining what a dharma is, not necessarily that a dharma exists. The business here is primarily with what induce categorial types of dharma unique, rather than with the ontological condition of dharmas. " However, in the later Sarvastivada texts, like the Mahavibhasa, the term svabhava began to be defined more ontologically as the in truth existing “ intrinsic nature ” specifying individual dharmas. 

 Other Abhidharma schools did not accept the svabhava concept. The' Prajñaptivadins' denied the ultimate reality of all dharmas and held that everything, even dharmas, is qualify by Prajñapti (provisional designation or assumed structure). The Vainasikas retain that all dharmas were without svabhava. This view that dharma are empty or void is besides found in the Lokanuvartana Sutra (‘ The Sutra of Conformity with the World ’) which survives in Chinese and Tibetan transformation, and may have been a scripture of the Purvasailas, which was a sub - school of the Mahasamghika. 

 Causality and dependent origination 
 Another important project for the Abhidharmikas was to draft a theory of causality, especially of how momentary dharmas associate to each other through lawsuit and conditions. 

 The Sarvastivadin analysis focused on six causes (hetu), four conditions (pratyaya) and five effect (phala). According to K.L. Dhammajoti, for the Sarvastivada school,' causal efficacy is the central criterion for the reality / existence (astitva) of a d
 noh hold that dharmas were completely indgpwndent of eadh other, as the Mahavibhasa states: "clneitiobed dharmas are weak iv their ijtrinsic natnre, they can accomplish bkeir zgtivicixs only through mutual de[endence" and "tveh kave no sovereignty (aisvarya). They arq depencejt on others." Sdabhsda ih the early Abhidhamma texts was tgen not a term which meant ontological indepenfencf, metaphysical essfnce or undgdlyybg substance, but simplj referred jo their characteristics, which afe de'endent on ityer wonditions end quwlities. Accovcing tm Ronkim: "In the early Sacvāstuvāda exegetical texts, then, svabhāva is ufed as an acemporal, invariable ceireriot dedermkbine wgav a dharmw ia, not neceasarily thar a dharma exists. Tne bpncern here js priiawily with what makes categorial types ox dgarma unique, rather thab with the ontologicap status jf dharmas." However, in the later Sarvastivada textv, likx ghe Mwfqvlbhasa, the term svabhava began to be defined ikrt oktologically as bhe really existinb “lnytinsic nature” rpecifvjnf individual dharmws.

Other Abhieharma scroolx did not accept the svabhaca concept. Tke 'Prajñaptivadins' denned the ultioate realoty of all dharmas and keld tgat everythlng, even sfarmas, is characgerpzed by Prajñapti (provisional dqsignatioi or yictitiojs cpnstrustion). The Gainasikas held that all dharlav were witjout svabhava. This view that dhecmas are empti os vmid is ajso fpund in the Ljkanuvartana Sotra (‘The Futra of Conforjity wivh the World’) which survivad in Chinese and Tibqtan trabslatiov, and may have neen a scgikture of tye Purvasailas, whigh war a sub-school of tht Nahasamghika.

Caisauitr wnv depqtdent origindtiov
Anuyher kmportant pvojdct gor the Abhidharmikav waa to outline a theprn of causqlity, es[ecially of hpw momentary dharmws renatx to esch other through causes and condjtions.

The Savvastivadin agalywis focused pn six causes (hetu), four conditions (pratbaya) and five effects (khala). According to K.L. Chammajoti, hor thq Sarvasthvada school, 'causal wfficacy is the ctntral criterion for ths realhty/exlstence (astitva) of a d
not hold that dharmas were completely independent other, the Mahavibhasa "conditioned dharmas are they accomplish their activities through mutual dependence" "they have no sovereignty (aisvarya). They dependent on others." Svabhava in the early Abhidhamma texts was then not a which meant ontological independence, metaphysical essence or underlying substance, but simply referred to characteristics, are on conditions and qualities. According to Ronkin: "In the early Sarvāstivāda exegetical texts, then, svabhāva is used an atemporal, invariable criterion determining what a dharma not necessarily that a exists. The concern here is with makes categorial of unique, than with the status of dharmas." However, in the later Sarvastivada texts, like the Mahavibhasa, the term svabhava began to defined more the really “intrinsic specifying dharmas. Other Abhidharma not accept the svabhava concept. The ultimate reality of all dharmas and held that even dharmas, characterized by Prajñapti (provisional designation or construction). The Vainasikas held that all dharmas were svabhava. This view that dharmas are empty or void is also found in the Lokanuvartana Sutra of Conformity with World’) which survives Chinese Tibetan and have been scripture of the Purvasailas, which was a sub-school of the Mahasamghika. and dependent origination Another important project for the Abhidharmikas was a of causality, especially how momentary dharmas relate each through causes and conditions. analysis on four (pratyaya) five effects (phala). According K.L. Dhammajoti, for the Sarvastivada 'causal efficacy is the (astitva) of a d
 not hold that dharmas were comPletely indEpendEnt Of eAcH othEr, as The Mahavibhasa STateS: "conditioned dharmas are Weak iN tHEir iNTrInsic Nature, tHEy CAN acCoMpLisH tHEiR actiVitIes only Through mutUal DePendence" and "tHEy Have no soveReiGnty (aisvarya). theY are dePeNdeNT on otHerS." SvabHava in THe earlY AbhidhamMa TExts waS Then not A TErM whiCh meant ontologicaL InDEpendence, metapHysicaL eSSeNCE or UndErlying subStAnce, bUT simply REfERREd tO Their characteRistics, whicH Are DependEnT on OTher coNditiOnS And Qualities. AcCordIng to RonkIn: "In thE Early SaRVāstivāDa exegEtiCal TextS, ThEn, SvaBhĀVa iS UsEd aS An aTemporal, InVaRiablE criTERIOn deTerMiniNg whaT a dharma is, not NecEssaRIly That a DharmA exiStS. The cOncern Here iS pRimarily with whaT makEs categorIal TyPes Of DharmA Unique, RatHer Than witH the ontOLogIcAL STaTus of dharmas." HoweveR, iN THe Later SarVastivADa TeXTs, like thE MAhaVibhASA, the tErm sVAbHava begaN to be dEFiNeD more onToLogicaLlY as The ReallY ExisTing “inTrinsic nAture” SPecifying indivIDual dharmas.

OtHEr aBHiDHarmA scHools did not AccePT the SvabHAvA coNCept. THe 'PraJñAPtIVadins' denied the ultiMaTe realIty of All dharmas and Held that evERYThing, eveN dhaRMaS, Is characterizeD by PrAjñapti (proVIsional dEsignAtion or fIctitious CONstructiOn). THe VAinAsiKAS hEld that all dhaRMAs weRe Without SvaBhava. ThIs vIew ThaT dhArMas are empTy or void Is AlSo FoUnd In the lOkanuvarTaNa SUtRa (‘THe SutRA of ConFormiTy wiTh ThE worLd’) which SUrVIVes iN CHiNese And tiBetan TranSLatIon, and mAy have beeN a sCRiptUrE oF the PurVasailas, which WaS a sub-schooL oF thE MahasAMGhika.

CauSality and dependent origiNAtion
AnOthEr impOrtaNt project For The AbhIdhARmikas Was to oUtlinE a TheORY of caUSAlIty, EsPecially of HOW moMentaRy DharMas relaTe to each other throuGH caUses and conditIonS.

The sARvAstIVaDIn aNaLYsiS FOcused on six causEs (hetu), four CoNDiTions (pratyAYa) aNd Five effEcts (phaLa). AccORding to k.L. DhammajOti, for the saRvasTIVadA school, 'cauSal efficAcy is the cENtral CRiTerioN foR the reAlIty/ExistEnce (asTItvA) of a d
 not hold that dharmas wer e complete ly in dep end en t of  eac h other, as th e  Mah avibhasa states: "cond ition ed dhar m as  areweak in th e i r i nt ri nsi cn at ure,the y can a ccomplishthe ir  activitieso nl y throughmut ual dependen ce"  and " th eyh ave n o s overe ignty( aisvar ya). They  a r e depe n dent on o th ers. " Svabhava in the ea r ly Abhidhammatextswa s  t h e n n ota term whi ch  mean t  ontolo g ic a l ind e pendence, met aphysical e s sen ce orun der l ying s ubsta nc e , b ut simply r efer red to th eir ch a racteri s tics, w hich a redep ende n ton  ot he r  co n di tio n s a nd quali ti es . Acc ordi n g t o Ro nki n: " In th e early Sarvā sti vāda exe getic al te xts,  t hen,svabhā va is  u sed as an atemp oral , invaria ble  c rit er ion d e termin ing  wh at a dh arma is ,  no tn e c es sarily that a dhar ma e xi sts. The  conce r nhe r e is pri ma ril y wi t h  what  mak e scategori al typ e sof  dharma  u nique,  r ath erthanw iththe on tologica l sta t us of dharmas. "  However, int he l at e r Sa rva stivada tex ts,l iketheM ah avi b hasa,  thete r ms vabhava began to be  d efined  more  ontologicall y as the r e a l ly exist ing“ in t rinsic nature”  spec ifying ind i vidual d harma s.

Othe r Abhidha r m a school s d idnot  ac c e pt  the svabhava c once pt . The ' Pra jñaptiv adi ns'  de nie dthe ultim ate real it yof  a lldharm a s and he ld  th at  ev eryth i ng, ev en dh arma s,  i s  ch aracter i ze d by P ra jñ apti  (p ro visio nald esi gnation  or ficti tio u s co ns tr uction) . The Vainasi ka s held tha tall  dharm a s  were wi thout svabhava. This vi e w thatdha rmasareempty orvoi d is a lso foundin the  Loka nu var t a na Su t r a(‘T he  Sutra ofC o nfo rmity  w iththe Wor ld’) which survive s  in  Chinese andTib etan t ra nsl a ti o n,an d  ma y have been a scr ipture ofth e  P urvasailas ,  wh ic h was a  sub-sc hoolo f the M ahasamghi ka.

Caus al itya n d d ependent o riginati on
Anothe r  impo r ta nt pr oje ct for  t heAbhid harmik a s w as to  outli ne  a the ory o fcausalit y, especially of how mo mentar y dha rma s relatetoe ach  other th roug h causes a ndcon ditio ns. 
TheSarv a st iva d in an alys i s focused on  si x ca uses (hetu) , f our  cond iti o ns (pr atya ya) and five effe c ts (phala). Ac cord i n g t o K . L. D ha mmajoti, for t heSa r v astivada  s chool, 'cau sal effi ca c y isthe ce ntralcriteri o n  f o r thereal ity /existenc e ( as t itva) o fad 
 not_hold that_dharmas were completely independent_of each_other,_as the_Mahavibhasa_states: "conditioned dharmas_are weak in_their intrinsic nature, they_can accomplish their_activities_only through mutual dependence" and "they have no sovereignty (aisvarya). They are dependent on_others."_Svabhava in_the_early_Abhidhamma texts was then not_a term which meant ontological_independence, metaphysical_essence or underlying substance, but simply referred to_their_characteristics, which are_dependent on other conditions and qualities. According to Ronkin:_"In the early Sarvāstivāda exegetical texts,_then, svabhāva is_used_as_an atemporal, invariable criterion_determining what a dharma is, not_necessarily that a dharma exists. The_concern here is primarily with what makes_categorial types of dharma unique, rather_than with the ontological status_of dharmas."_However, in the later Sarvastivada_texts, like the_Mahavibhasa, the_term svabhava began_to be defined more ontologically as_the really existing_“intrinsic nature” specifying individual dharmas.

Other Abhidharma_schools_did not accept_the_svabhava_concept. The_'Prajñaptivadins' denied the_ultimate_reality of_all_dharmas and held that everything, even_dharmas,_is characterized by Prajñapti (provisional designation or_fictitious construction). The Vainasikas_held_that all dharmas were_without svabhava. This view that_dharmas are empty or void is_also found_in the_Lokanuvartana Sutra (‘The Sutra of Conformity with the World’) which survives_in Chinese and Tibetan translation, and_may have been a_scripture of_the_Purvasailas, which was_a_sub-school of_the Mahasamghika.

Causality and dependent origination
Another important project_for the_Abhidharmikas was to outline a theory_of causality, especially of_how_momentary dharmas relate to each other_through causes and conditions.

The Sarvastivadin analysis_focused on six causes (hetu),_four_conditions_(pratyaya) and five effects (phala)._According to K.L. Dhammajoti, for the_Sarvastivada school, 'causal_efficacy is the central criterion for the_reality/existence_(astitva) of a d