Over the years I have occasionally seen this quote from the Patisambhidhimagga ( Paṭisambhidāmaggapāḷi) suggested as evidence that the Theravada teaching on Sabhava as individual essence or own essence is wrong.
The Commentary, the Saddhammappakāsinī by Mahanama explains.
Sabhāvena suññanti ettha sayaṃ bhāvo sabhāvo, sayameva uppādoti attho.
In " sabhāvena suññaṃ", sabhāva means its own nature, that is, arising by itself.
Sato vā bhāvo sabhāvo, attatoyeva uppādoti attho.
Or, sabhāva means being from itself, that is, arising solely from itself.
Paccayāyattavuttittā paccayaṃ vinā sayameva bhāvo, attato eva vā bhāvo etasmiṃ natthīti sabhāvena suññaṃ, sayameva bhāvena, attato eva vā bhāvena suññanti vuttaṃ hoti.
Because its existence is dependent on conditions, there is no inherent existence by itself without a condition, nor is there existence solely from itself. Thus, it is said to be void of its own nature, or void of existence solely from itself.
Atha vā sakassa bhāvo sabhāvo.
Alternatively, sabhāva means its own specific nature.
Pathavīdhātuādīsu hi anekesu rūpārūpadhammesu ekeko dhammo paraṃ upādāya sako nāma.
Indeed, among the many rūpa and arūpa phenomena, such as the earth element, each phenomenon is called ‘its own’ in relation to another.
Bhāvoti ca dhammapariyāyavacanametaṃ.
And " bhāvo" is a synonym for dhamma.
Ekassa ca dhammassa añño bhāvasaṅkhāto dhammo natthi, tasmā sakassa aññena bhāvena suññaṃ, sako aññena bhāvena suññoti attho.
And there is no other dhamma, called bhāva, for a single dhamma. Therefore, it is void of its own specific nature by another, meaning its own specific nature is void of another specific nature.
Tena ekassa dhammassa ekasabhāvatā vuttā hoti.
Thereby, the singularity of the specific nature of a single dhamma is stated.
Atha vā sabhāvena suññanti suññasabhāveneva suññaṃ.
Alternatively, " sabhāvena suññaṃ" means void by the very nature of voidness.
Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti?
What is meant?
Suññasuññatāya eva suññaṃ, na aññāhi pariyāyasuññatāhi suññanti vuttaṃ hoti.
It means it is void by the voidness of voidness itself, and not void by other kinds of voidness.
2245
Sace pana keci vadeyyuṃ ‘‘sako bhāvo sabhāvo, tena sabhāvena suñña’’nti.
If some were to say, “Its own nature is sabhāva, and it is void by that sabhāva,”
Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti?
What would be meant?
Bhāvoti dhammo, so paraṃ upādāya sapadena visesito sabhāvo nāma hoti.
It means bhāva is dhamma, and when that is qualified by the word ‘its own’ in relation to another, it is called sabhāva.
Dhammassa kassaci avijjamānattā ‘‘jātaṃ rūpaṃ sabhāvena suñña’’nti rūpassa avijjamānatā vuttā hotīti.
Since no dhamma exists, by the statement “generated rūpa is void by its own nature,” the non-existence of rūpa is stated.
Evaṃ sati ‘‘jātaṃ rūpa’’ntivacanena virujjhati.
If that were the case, it would contradict the statement “generated rūpa.”
Na hi uppādarahitaṃ jātaṃ nāma hoti.
For that which is devoid of arising is not called ‘generated’.
Nibbānañhi uppādarahitaṃ, taṃ jātaṃ nāma na hoti, jātijarāmaraṇāni ca uppādarahitāni jātāni nāma na honti.
Nibbāna is devoid of arising; it is not called ‘generated’. And birth, aging, and death, being devoid of arising, are not called ‘generated’.
Tenevettha ‘‘jātā jāti sabhāvena suññā, jātaṃ jarāmaraṇaṃ sabhāvena suñña’’nti evaṃ anuddharitvā bhavameva avasānaṃ katvā niddiṭṭhaṃ.
For this very reason, here, it is not stated as “generated birth is void by its own nature, generated aging and death are void by their own nature,” but rather, it is designated by making bhava (existence) the conclusion.
Yadi uppādarahitassāpi ‘‘jāta’’ntivacanaṃ yujjeyya, ‘‘jātā jāti, jātaṃ jarāmaraṇa’’nti vattabbaṃ bhaveyya.
If the term “generated” could apply even to that which is devoid of arising, then it should be said “generated birth, generated aging and death.”
Yasmā uppādarahitesu jātijarāmaraṇesu ‘‘jāta’’ntivacanaṃ na vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘sabhāvena suññaṃ avijjamāna’’nti vacanaṃ avijjamānassa uppādarahitattā ‘‘jāta’’ntivacanena virujjhati.
Since the term “generated” is not used for birth, aging, and death, which are devoid of arising, the statement “void by its own nature, non-existent” contradicts the term “generated” due to the non-existent being devoid of arising.
Avijjamānassa ca ‘‘suñña’’ntivacanaṃ heṭṭhā vuttena lokavacanena ca bhagavato vacanena ca ñāyasaddaganthavacanena ca virujjhati, anekāhi ca yuttīhi virujjhati, tasmā taṃ vacanaṃ kacavaramiva chaḍḍitabbaṃ.
And the statement “empty” regarding that which does not exist contradicts the worldly saying mentioned below, the Buddha’s saying, and the sayings in the treatises on logic and grammar; it also contradicts many logical reasons. Therefore, that statement should be discarded like rubbish.
‘‘Yaṃ, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, ahampi taṃ atthīti vadāmi.
“Bhikkhus, what is regarded by the wise in the world as existing, that too I say exists.
Yaṃ, bhikkhave, natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, ahampi taṃ natthīti vadāmi.
Bhikkhus, what is regarded by the wise in the world as not existing, that too I say does not exist.
Kiñca, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, yamahaṃ atthīti vadāmi?
And what, bhikkhus, is regarded by the wise in the world as existing, which I say exists?
Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, ahampi taṃ atthīti vadāmī’’tiādīhi (saṃ. ni. 3.94) anekehi buddhavacanappamāṇehi anekāhi ca yuttīhi dhammā sakakkhaṇe vijjamānā evāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
With these and many other authoritative words of the Buddha, and many logical reasons, such as, “Form, bhikkhus, is impermanent, suffering, subject to change; that is regarded by the wise in the world as existing, and that too I say exists,” it must be concluded that phenomena exist in their own specific characteristics.
2246
Vigataṃ rūpanti uppajjitvā bhaṅgaṃ patvā niruddhaṃ atītaṃ rūpaṃ.
Vigataṃ rūpaṃ (past form) means form that has arisen, reached dissolution, and ceased.
Vipariṇatañceva suññañcāti jarābhaṅgavasena virūpaṃ pariṇāmaṃ pattañca vattamānasseva vipariṇāmasabbhāvato atītassa vipariṇāmābhāvato tena vipariṇāmena suññañcāti attho.
Vipariṇatañceva suññañcā (both changed and empty) means that it has reached a changed, altered state through decay and dissolution, and it is empty of that change because change exists only for existing phenomena, not for past phenomena.
Jātā vedanā tiādīsupi eseva nayo.
The same method applies to jātā vedanā (arisen feeling), and so on.
Jātijarāmaraṇaṃ pana anipphannattā sakabhāvena anupalabbhanīyato idha na yujjati, tasmā ‘‘jātā jāti, jātaṃ jarāmaraṇa’’ntiādike dve naye pahāya bhavādikameva nayaṃ pariyosānaṃ katvā ṭhapitaṃ.
However, birth, old age, and death are not produced and cannot be apprehended by their own nature, so they are not included here. Therefore, the two methods beginning with “arisen birth, arisen old age and death” are omitted, and only the method beginning with existence (bhava) is concluded and presented.
In summary Mahānāma explains that if something had a “self-nature” in the sense of being its own cause, it would be independent of the law of conditionality (Paticcasamuppada). Since all 199 dhammas listed in the Paṭisambhidāmagga are conditioned, they are “empty” of this specific type of unconditioned self-origination. He affirms that sabhava in the sense that each paramattha dhamma has a distinguishable own characteristic is of course correct.