From the Mahāvibhāṣa, something that might interest readers:
Question: Why do you make this treatise?
Answer: Because we declare our own theory, denying that of the other schools.
The Dārṣṭāntikas (響喩者) and the Vibhajyavādins (分別論師) assert that a subtle mind (細心) is not annihilated in nirodhasamāpatti. They say that there are not any sentient beings (sattva) without rūpa, and that there is neither any samāpatti without mind (acittaka). [They say that] If the samāpatti is acittaka, the vital organ (jīvitendriya) will be eradicated; such a state is not a samāpatti, but death. On account of denying their assertion, we declare that there is not a mind at all in nirodhasamāpatti.
A certain, though admitting acittaka, asserts that nirodhasamāpatti appears only free from the defilement of rūpadhātu because it belongs to the same dhātu as the arūpyasamāpattis. On account of denying this assertion, we declare that nirodhasamāpatti always appears free from defilement of ākiṁcanyāyatana because it has the mind of naivasaṁjñānāsaṁjñāyatana as its samantarapratyaya (condition being immediately antecedent).
Therefore, Sthavira Vasumitra says: "What is nirodhasamāpatti? What, one having been free from defilement of ākiṁcanyāyatana, his mind and mental activities are annihilated (cittacaittānāṁ dharmāṇāṁ nirodhaḥ) by the mental orientation preceded by the conception of tranquility (śāntavihārasaṁjñāpūrvakeṇa manasikāreṇa) -- that is called nirodhasamāpatti."
On account of these reasons, we make this treatise.
(T1545.774a Mahāvibhāṣa quoted by Noriaki Hakamaya in Nirodhasamāpatti: Its Historical Meaning in the Vijñaptimātratā System, p. 36-37, translation from de la Vallée-Poussin L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu Tome 1, p. 212)
For readability: Dārṣṭāntikas are another name for Sautrāntikas or "Sūtra-ists," a subsect of the Sarvāstivādins. The citation of Abhidharmakośa that Hakamaya uses is from the original French translation. In Prüden's English translation, it appears in Vol. 1, p. 346, at footnote 257.
This came up in another thread...
circuit wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:11 amis it true that Srilanka Theravada 100% same as Vibhajjavada?
This also incidentally substantiates that the insular and continental Vibhajyavādins were distinct at least with regard to teachings concerning the arūpyadhātu. AFAIK, Theravāda takes the stance that beings of the arūpyadhātu have no rūpa.
The "subtle mind" (細心 xì xīn, sūkṣmacitta) that the Mahāvibhāṣa speaks of above is identified by Hakamaya as the bhavāṇgacitta.
According to Theravāda, is there the functioning of the bhavāṇgacitta in saññavedayitanirodha? My entire participation in the thread thus far has been under the assumption that there is not.