tiltbillings wrote:And this is equally true of the Abhidhamma.
Well, this will be the crux of the issue, and it goes too far afield from the OP to discuss here in detail, but the point is that "one citta at a time" is event-based, as on that view one citta is a discreet entity distinct from others, with clear boundaries that, while relational, are nevertheless distinguished. While the Suttas remain enclosed by the process of suffering and the process of liberation, the abhidhamma begins to obsess over the series of mental events which comprise that process
. I will see your Piatigorsky and raise you a Ronkin
on this analysis (see Concluding Remarks, in particular beginning page 248).
Since Piatigorsky's position essentially is in line with Ven Nyanaponika's points made in his ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES. It is also supported Prof. Dr. Y. Karunadasa, THE DHAMMA THEORY, page 9 http://www.zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf
in his look at the early ideas of dhamma theory, not so much the later notions, I would say my position is defensible. As for Ronkin, I shrug my shoulders.
tiltbillings wrote:Only if it were an accurate portrayal of the Abhidhamma (Pitaka texts), which it is not.
So, the claim that the abhidhamma generates an event-based metaphysics of mind does have support, as cited above. That this differs from the process-oriented SuttaVinaya is also evident. The question is whether this difference is meaningful, which I contend to be the case since the Buddha did not ever parse the Dhamma in that way over the course of decades of teaching.
You are the one calling this an "event-based metaphysics of mind." I don't buy into that; I don't need to defend a position I do not take. While I am not a big fan of the Abhidhamma (Pitaka), I am not going to dismiss it out of hand as many do, based upon . . . . well, damdifino.