In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Vasubandhu agrees with the Ābhidharmikas’ assertion that pleasure exists, in contrast to the assertion that pleasant sensations do not exist. Comparing Vasubandhu’s argument with that of Saṅghabhadra in the Nyāyānusāra, it becomes evident that the respective arguments differ, though they are mutually based on the idea of three types of suffering.
Quoting different sūtras on neither suffering nor pleasure, Vasubandhu explains that all conditioned phenomena have the nature of arising and ceasing, and that the aspect of impermanent nature draws the aspect of suffering. On the other hand, Saṅghabhadra associates suffering with the lack of wisdom.
Both hold that external objects alone are not the sole causes of suffering and pleasure; instead, they argue that these sensations depend on the state of the supporting basis. Saṅghabhadra explains that special changes in the transformation of the body-stream cause pain or pleasure of the external object. Vasubandhu illustrates that whenever a certain bodily state is attained, the object becomes the cause of pain or pleasure in a similar manner.
The Sthavira, who asserts that suffering alone exists, cites a sūtra which addresses false representations （saṃjñāviparyāsa）. He mentions that improper mental application （ayoniśomanaskāra） and ignorant contact （avidyāsaṃsparśa） cause pleasant sensations.
