I'm sorry but I don't quite see how seeing Dhammas as being Paramattha contradicts seeing them as being void, insubstantial, and lacking essence. When we say that a dhamma exists ultimately, we mean (in my understanding) that it is a part of direct experience rather than being a concept based on experience. This is true of all four classes of ultimate objects in Abhidhamma. Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana are all things that are experienced.thomaslaw wrote:Dear Dhamma friends,
Having read your postings regarding the notion/concept of Paramattha, and the information of this notion shown in Abhidhammattha Sangaha 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma', p. 25, it is very likely that the teachings of Paramattha (and its connection with Pa~n~natti 'Concept') are obviously 'not' supported by the suttas, such as the SN suttas (cf. Choong MK, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 54, 92, 138 (on 'pa~n~naapeti'), 154).
E.g. the five aggregates (according to the SN suttas) should be seen as they realy are as 'void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka)' (SN 22.95: PTS, iii, 140-143), because they (the five aggregates) are phenomena (dhammas) arisen by causal condition ('not' by their own right as 'irreducible' realities/components of existence), having the nature (dhamma) of anicca 'impermanence', nirodha 'cessation' (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27).
Regards,
Thomas
What we do not mean when we say that dhammas exist ultimately is that they have an essence or an existence that is not dependent on other things. The Theravada school explicitly rejects such an idea in the Patisambhidamagga which has an entire chapter that just lists all the different categories of analysis (the aggregates, the sense bases, etc... all the way up to Nibbana) and says that they are empty. It is true that sometimes in Theravada Abhidhamma the term Sabhava comes up (which is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit term Svabhava) but in the context of Theravadin Abhidhamma (as opposed for example to Sarvastivadin Abhidharma) the term doesn't mean an 'essence' or 'intrinsic existence' but is a general term that just means property, not essence.