Buddhism has gone through a long history from the Original Buddhism to the Sectarian Buddhism to the Mahayana Buddhism. In the long history, each Buddhism Sect has different points of view in their perspectives and practices in regard to the doctrine of Buddha’s teachings. The difference in the relationship between “Karma” and the “Subjectivity of samsara” is one of their main deviations. The Sarvāstivādins and the Vātsīputrīyāḥ has had intense debate with each other about this issue. Buddhism’s concept of “Power of karma ” and of “Subjectivity of essence” is neither Brahmanism’s concept of “order” (ṛta), “worship” (Pūjā) and “intention of the Unity of Brahma and Me” (Brahma-ātma-aikyam) nor Jainism’s concept of “pudgala”. It is based on the “theory of non-self” (anātman) and the concept of “Karma is working but there is no karma creater” within the “theory of dependent co-arising”. During the Sectarian Buddhism period, Sarvāstivādin timely added “the three times are real, as are the essences of phenomena”, therefore there are three concepts: “essence of all things” of “non-manifest karma” (avijñapti-karman), the “phenomena self” (dharma-ātman) existed in the three times for ever, and the “conception of self” (pudgala-ātman). Before the “conception of self” as the “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” of karmic retribution was raised, there are a number of contradictions between “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” “power of karma” and Sarvāstivādin’s “the three times are real, as are the essences of phenomena” With space-time goes by, to the question about existence of “the power of karma”, Vātsīputrīyāḥ advocated “the non-perishing nature of karma” (avipraṇāśa) maintains “the power of karma” until the fruit of retribution of “the power of karma” to be finished before its disappearance. And to “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” of karmic retribution, they promoted the fact that “the ineffable pudgala” (avaktavya pudgala) is the “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” maintaining the “power of karma” from a previous lifetime to the subsequent one. Then, “the non-perishing nature of karma” will be finished when pudgala getting the fruit of “power of karma”. The Pudgala is completely influenced by the constraint of the effects of “the non-perishing nature of karma”. Therefore, the determination of where the next lifetime of pudgala is born, depends on “the non-perishing nature of karma”. What Sarvāstivādins and Vātsīputrīyāḥs both claimed is that for the “Subjectivity of saṃsāra”, somewhere it may get an answer between the Subjectivity and “power of karma”, but Nāgārjuna considers that this is against the concept of “the dependent co-arising theory” in Buddhism. Accordingly, he completely refutes their view with the returning to the Buddhist view of “the empty nature of dependent arising”, presenting Buddha’ saying of the real concept between the “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” and the “power of karma”. From Sarvāstivādins and Vātsīputrīyāḥs’ points of view, their concept of “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” and “power of karma” and Nāgārjuna’s critique in the Madhyamaka-śāstra , a glimpse of the origins, development and the characteristics of the Buddhist concept of “Subjectivity of saṃsāra” and “power of karma” can be obtained.
