Are the ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) purely subjective? Or, if they exist, and are not simply subjective, why are they regularly said to be purely subjective, or subjective perceptual experiences? Where is it stated otherwise in abhidhamma?

[ekocare]

Dear Zans, I just guess at least part of your problem is due to the feeling/notion that “space is real”.

@Y. Karunadasa

In the Nikāyas they are defined in simple and general terms and are illustrated mostly with reference to the constituents of the human body.

The Abhidhamma and Commentary clearly distinguish the Suttha-method and Abhidhamma-method while accepting both. The Sutta-method only considers “Sasambhara (in general sense) mahābhūtas”.

@Y. Karunadasa

These definitions seem to suggest that from its very beginning Buddhism did not make a radical departure from the popular conception of the mahābhūtas.

This idea is at least very risky. A person in modern era can’t conclude that Sutta-method is the “Original method” or the “Only method mentioned by the Buddha”.

The Atthakata says both sutta-method and abhidhamma-method are original methods.

The four vinayas don’t accept personal opinions as authority over Atthakata or Abhidhamma.

@Zans

But there is difficulty in saying, “Things that are the earth element are strictly hardness, and nothing else.” The difference being that things can have the attribute of being hard, and be the earth element, but things cannot be the attribute of hardness alone, because that is linguistically, and logically unsound.

If we try to define what we think as the “the thing” other than the characteristic, then we will find the answer. I guess, we will not find any nature other than the “Function (rasa)”, as the “thing”.

Hardness can also be defined as bearing, receiving etc. by considering its function or manifestation. All these are the same element.

Who does perform “bearing”? Hardness perform “bearing”.

@Zans

The earth element is hardness and extension which can bear other elements and qualities.

Yes, if we know that the space is not real.
I would say as “The earth element is hardness which can bear other elements” for more security.

Kathavatthu Atthakata says that there are 3 spaces, namely: delimitation-space, kasina-ugghata-space and boundless-space. Out of these 3 spaces, only the “delimitation-space” is a Sankhata-paramattha and other 2 spaces are Pannatti.

We see as if mahabhutas occupying 3D-space, but 3D-space is unreal. Only the delimitation is real.

@Zans

An elemental force that allows other elements to occupy space can surely bear the attribute of hardness. Just like a magnetic field can bear the attribute of strongness, even though there is no substance to be found there.

This force is nothing other than the function of the characteristic.
Space should be taken as conventional space.

@Zans

It is not a substance, but is the force that allows objects to occupy space,

We may say it in the conventional sense, but we have to be careful to not to take “space” as real, just like we don’t take “time” as real when we describe mind-moments.

@Zans

Yet, saying that there is nothing whatsoever to a magnetic field but “strongness” would be nonsense, because “strongness” is an attribute borne by something else, not alone.

When the body touches Pathavi, the triad “kaya-potthabba-kayavinnana” can be written as 'kaya-hardness-kayavinnana". Here the Kayavinnana is the “Sensation of hardness”.

What Classical Theravada defines as the hardness is not the “sensation of hardness” but the “objective hardness (bearing nature)”.