 We must also note that the context within which dharmas are rendered in terms of their intrinsic natures is that of categorization, where multiple criteria and qualities are applied to create a comprehensive taxonomic system that distinguishes the particular character of any given dharma. Cox (2004A: 559–561) has shown that in the early period of northern Indian Abhidharma texts, as represented by the Śāriputrābhidharmaśāstra and portions of the Mahāvibhāṣā, the concept of intrinsic nature develops within the context of the method of inclusion (saṃgraha), that is, the process by which the inclusion of dharmas within a specific category is to be applied. Dharmas are determined (pariniṣpanna) by the intrinsic nature that defines them and hence should not be considered to possess a separately existing intrinsic nature. “‘Determination’ implies two further features of dharmas […] First, just as categories in a well-structured taxonomic schema are distinct and not subject to fluctuation, so also dharmas, as ‘determined,’ are clearly and unalterably discriminated: they are uniquely individualized and as such are not subject to confusion with other dharmas. [Second,] determination by intrinsic nature undergoes no variation or modification, and hence, dharmas, which are in effect types or categories of intrinsic nature, are established as stable and immutable” (ibid, 562). 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.