Where might one find a refutation of Vasubandhu and Yogacara, as devastating as Betty and others papers on Nagarjuna?

[ekocare]

@Zans

Would you affirm that it is true that all paramattha dhammas are dependent on mind?

Or do at least some of them exist from their own side, and can exist without mind?

If it turns out Classical Theravada teaches that all paramattha dhammas are dependent on mind, and cease when mind ceases, and that’s what “exist from its own side means,” and thus, Classical Theravada is a form of idealism, then by the end of today I might not even be a Buddhist any longer.

Paramatthas are independent of the mind in the sense that they are not illusions of cognitive act. They exist from their own side.

What I meant was that Sankhata dhammas are not independent in the sense that they are dependently arisen.

Meanings of Sabhava:

1. In the general sense: “nature”
2. In Abhidhamma: “intrinsic/own nature” (sabhava-lakkhana)
3. But in the following Patisambhidamagga passage: “exist/arise from its own”, “exist/arise from itself”

This 3rd meaning is refuted as false (suññaṃ) by the passage itself.

Paṭisambhidāmaggapāḷi » Yuganaddhavagga
Katamaṃ vipariṇāmasuññaṃ? jātaṃ rūpaṃ sabhāvena suññaṃ. vigataṃ rūpaṃ vipariṇatañceva suññañca. Jātā vedanā sabhāvena suññā. Vigatā vedanā vipariṇatā ceva suññā ca …pe… jātā saññā… jātā saṅkhārā… jātaṃ viññāṇaṃ… jātaṃ cakkhu…pe… jāto bhavo sabhāvena suñño. Vigato bhavo vipariṇato ceva suñño ca. Idaṃ vipariṇāmasuññaṃ.

Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā » Yuganaddhavagga
sabhāvena suññanti ettha sayaṃ bhāvo sabhāvo, sayameva uppādoti attho. Sato vā bhāvo sabhāvo, attatoyeva uppādoti attho. Paccayāyattavuttittā paccayaṃ vinā sayameva bhāvo, attato eva vā bhāvo etasmiṃ natthīti sabhāvena suññaṃ, sayameva bhāvena, attato eva vā bhāvena suññanti vuttaṃ hoti. Atha vā sakassa bhāvo sabhāvo. Pathavīdhātuādīsu hi anekesu rūpārūpadhammesu ekeko dhammo paraṃ upādāya sako nāma. bhāvo ti ca dhammapariyāyavacanametaṃ. Ekassa ca dhammassa añño bhāvasaṅkhāto dhammo natthi, tasmā sakassa aññena bhāvena suññaṃ, sako aññena bhāvena suññoti attho. Tena ekassa dhammassa ekasabhāvatā vuttā hoti. Atha vā sabhāvena suñña nti suññasabhāveneva suññaṃ. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Suññasuññatāya eva suññaṃ, na aññāhi pariyāyasuññatāhi suññanti vuttaṃ hoti.

---

@Zans

… then by the end of today I might not even be a Buddhist any longer.

It is not a wise practice to make decisions in a hurry, specially this kind of serious decisions.

Whenever an unclear point comes, we have to refer Tipitaka and Commentaries directly, and also discuss with scholars and monks, for a long period of time, in order to clarify it.

If it is still unclear, we can keep it for later investigation and continue to practice, because the other majority Dhammas are clear.

Wish you to be confident in Theravada even in the case we argue against it!

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?

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