At first glance, the Buddhist Abhidhamma – a systematic framework for analysing mental and physical phenomena – and Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism – a philosophical approach to science and social theory – might appear to belong to wholly separate universes.

The former is a centuries-old tradition rooted in meditative insight and soteriological concern (Thanissaro, 2011); the latter a modern philosophy of science emerging from critiques of empiricism and positivism (Bhaskar, [1975] 2008). Yet, beneath the surface, both systems offer sophisticated accounts of reality, causation and knowledge that can inform one another.

This blog explores their convergences and divergences, suggesting that the Abhidhamma’s fine-grained analysis of experiential phenomena complements Bhaskar’s stratified and realist ontology, and vice versa.

It is written purely as I am interested in both Theravāda Buddhist philosophy and social theory. Whilst I used to teach Buddhism as part of an A-level Religious Studies course and have become interested in critical realism since embarking on a doctoral thesis questioning the excessive use of cognitive science in teacher training, I do not consider myself an expert in either area.

The Abhidhamma: Ontology in a meditative key

The Abhidhamma, particularly within the Theravāda tradition, is often described as the philosophical and psychological heart of Buddhist thought. It dissects experience into ultimate constituents (paramattha dhammas), categorised into mind (citta), mental factors (cetasika), matter (rūpa) and Nibbāna (Rāhula, 1978). These are often seen as momentary, conditioned and impersonal phenomena, arising and ceasing in accordance with dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) (Buddhadasa, [1971] 2002).

Furthermore, the Abhidhamma is not simply metaphysical – it is deeply phenomenological. Its aim is to refine perception and cognition so that one sees the world not as a collection of solid entities, but as a flow of conditioned processes. Its ontology is processual and dynamic, deeply intertwined with ethical and contemplative practice.

Bhaskar’s critical realism: Layers of the real

Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism distinguishes three domains of reality:

• The empirical (what is experienced),
• The actual (what occurs, whether observed or not),
• The real (the underlying mechanisms and structures that generate events).

Unlike positivism, which restricts knowledge to what can be observed, Bhaskar argues for ontological realism and epistemological relativism: reality exists independently of our knowledge of it, but our knowledge is always partial, situated and open to revision (Bhaskar, [1975] 2008).

He introduces stratified ontology to account for emergent properties. Social structures, for example, have causal efficacy but are not reducible to individual psychology. Similarly, mental events emerge from biological substrates but cannot be collapsed into them.

Comparative points: Parallels and divergences

1. Ontological Stratification vs Ontological Discreteness

• Abhidhamma: Posits a taxonomy of dhammas – ultimate realities – that make up the fabric of experience. Each dhamma has specific characteristics, functions and conditions for arising.
• Bhaskar: Views reality as composed of stratified and emergent levels (e.g., physical, biological, social), each with its own generative mechanisms.

Both approaches reject reductionism and uphold structured ontologies that resist collapsing phenomena into simplistic explanations. However, Abhidhamma dhammas are momentary and non-substantial, lacking enduring identity, whereas Bhaskar’s strata, while non-essentialist, are often treated as more stable structures with tendencies rather than discrete flashes of arising and ceasing.

2. Causality and Conditionality

• Abhidhamma: Elaborates 24 types of conditionality (paccaya), going beyond simple cause-effect logic. Causes can be simultaneous, supportive, decisive or obstructive (Nyanatiloka, 1980).
• Bhaskar: Argues for non-linear causation, where causal powers manifest differently depending on context. Mechanisms may be real but not always active or observable.

Here, both traditions embrace context-sensitive causality and recognise that causes may be latent or non-manifest. The Abhidhamma’s paccaya functions like a Buddhist articulation of Bhaskar’s generative mechanisms.

3. Epistemology: Insight vs Fallibility

• Abhidhamma: While ontologically realist about dhammas, it is also grounded in experiential verification through meditative insight (vipassanā). Knowledge is purifying and liberative.
• Bhaskar: Advocates epistemological relativism – our knowledge of the real is always mediated by theory, culture and history.

Arguably, both philosophies accept that direct knowledge of reality is difficult and mediated, but possible. The Abhidhamma does this through disciplined attention; Bhaskar through critical and reflexive science.

Toward a dialogue: Philosophy, praxis and liberation

Buddhist Abhidhamma and Bhaskar’s critical realism are united by a shared ambition: to map the real in service of transformation. For the Abhidhamma, this transformation is inner – freedom from suffering through insight. For Bhaskar, it is social – freedom from oppression through critique of unseen structures.

Could these goals inform one another?

Imagine a Buddhist critical realism – one that combines Bhaskar’s analysis of hidden socio-political forces with the Abhidhamma’s insight into mental and ethical conditioning. Such a synthesis might offer a multi-layered path of liberation in our chaotic, hectic and complex mental and social worlds, subsequently addressing both the interior and exterior dimensions of suffering (Buddhadasa, [1971] 2008; Bhaskar, [1993] 2008).

Conclusion

The Abhidhamma and Bhaskarian thought, though shaped by radically different contexts, share a profound commitment to realism without essentialism, causality without determinism and knowledge as a transformative enterprise. The dialogue between them is not merely comparative – it is potentially complementary, inviting us to see that rigorous ontology and contemplative practice need not be at odds.

In fact, they may be two lenses on the same reality—one trained inward, the other outward—both striving to uncover what is often hidden, and to do so not simply for knowing’s sake, but for the sake of freedom.

References

Bhaskar, R. ([1975] 2008). A realist theory of science. Verso Books.

Bhaskar, R. ([1993] 2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892633

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. ([1971] 2002). Paticcasamuppāda: Practical Dependent Origination (S. Schmidt, Trans.). The Dhamma Study & Practice Group. https://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/126/original/Buddhadasa-Paticcasamuppada-20200319.pdf?1599466277

Nyanatiloka Mahāthera. ([1938] 2008). Guide through the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Buddhist Publication Society. https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp302s_Nyanatiloka_Guide-to-Abhidamma.pdf

Rahula, W. (1978). Zen and the taming of the bull: Towards the definition of Buddhist thought: Essays. Gordon Fraser.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (2011). The shape of suffering: A study of dependent co-arising. Metta Forest Monastery. https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/TheShapeofSuffering_181215.pdf