Svabhava. (каково значение термина свабхава?)

All conditioned dharmas are included within the totality of the skandhas (i.7); all of the impure dharmas are included within the totality of the updddnaskandhas (i.8); and all the dharmas are included within the totality of the dyatanas and the dbatus (i. 14). But, more briefly,

       18a-b. All the dharmas are included in one skandha, one ayaiana, and one dhatu.86
In rupaskandha, mana-dyatana and dharmadhdtu.
       18c. A dharma is included in its own nature.87 (Gokhale: [18c2d] svabhāvena parabhāvaviyogataḥ)
Not in another nature. Why is this?
       18d For it is distinct from the nature of others.

A dharma is not included (samgraha) in that from which it is distinct. For example, the organ of sight is included within the rupaskandha, being rupa by its nature; within the caksurayatana and within the caksurdhatu, for it is the caksurayatana and caksurdhatu; within the Truth of Suffering and Arising, for it is suffering and arising; but it is not included within the other skandhas, dyatanas, etc, for it is distinct by its nature from that which is not itself.
_________
87. The problem of inclusion (samgraha) is examined in the Dhatukathapakarana, Kathavatthu, vii.1, Dhatukaya, and Prakarana (see below i.20, note 105).

A dharma is defined as that which holds its intrinsic characteristic (svalaksana-dhäranäd dharmah — § 1.2). ... Thus, a uniquely characterizable entity is a uniquely real (in the absolute sense) entity, having a unique intrinsic nature (svabhäva): "To be existent as an absolute entity is to be existent as an intrinsic characteristic (paramärthena sat svalaksanena sad ityarthah)"13

As the MVS explains, this is on account of the fact that "the entity itself is [its] characteristic, and the characteristic is the entity itself; for it is the case for all dharma-s that the characteristic cannot be predicated apart from the dharma itself."14 This is no doubt quite in keeping with the fundamental Buddhist stance which consistently rejects any substanceattribute dichotomy. By accounting for the svalaksana of a dharma — its phenomenologically cognizable aspect—its very ontological existence as a svabhäva/dravya is established. Ultimately these two are one.15 ...

The MVS distinguishes svalaksana from sämänya-laksana as follows: "The analysis of the laksana of a single entity (dravya) is the analysis of svalaksana. The analysis of the laksana of numerous entities is the analysis of sämänya-laksana." Further: "The svabhäva of dharma-s is the svalaksana of dharma-s. Homogeneity in nature is sämänyalaksana." Thus, all rüpa-s, vedanä-s, samjnä-s, etc., have the nature of being impermanent. This impermanent nature is a sämänya-laksana. ...

In this connection, the relativity as regards the notions of svalaksana and sämänya-laksana is to be noted. Thus, among various rüpa-s — different colors, different shapes — there is the common nature of being resistant and subject to deterioration. Accordingly, this svalaksana of a rüpa is distinct from a vedanä, etc. But, at the same time, it is also the sämänyalaksana of these various types of rüpa-s. Similarly, the Great Element, Earth (prthivî), is both svalaksana and sämänya-laksana — it is said to be a svalaksana in contrast to the other three Great Elements; and a sämänya-laksana, since all Earth Elements have the characteristic of firmness. In this way, the MVS declares, "there are infinite distinctions [that can be made] between svalaksana and sämänya-laksana".19