Other Buddhist schools such as the Prajñaptivāda ("the nominalists"), as well as the Caitika Mahāsāṃghikas refused to accept the concept of svabhava.Shì hùifēng, "Dependent Origination=Emptiness"—Nāgārjuna's Innovation? An Examination of the Early and Mainstream Sectarian Textual Sources Thus, not all Abhidharma sources defend svabhava. For example, the main topic of the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman (3-4th century CE), an influential Abhidharma text, is the emptiness (shunyata) of dharmas.Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. pp. 91-92 Indeed, this anti-essentialist nominalism was widespread among the Mahāsāṃghika sects. Another important feature of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition was its unique theory of consciousness. Many of the Mahāsāṃghika sub-schools defended a theory of self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) which held that consciousness can be simultaneously aware of itself as well as its intentional object.Yao, Zhihua (2005). The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition, p. 15. Some of these schools also held that the mind's nature (cittasvabhāva) is fundamentally pure (mulavisuddha), but it can be contaminated by adventitious defilements.Skorupski, Tadeusz. “Consciousness and Luminosity in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism.” In Buddhist Philosophy and Meditation Practice: Academic Papers Presented at the 2nd IABU Conference Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Main Campus Wang Noi, Ayutthaya, Thailand, 31 May–2 June 2012.
Other Buddhist schools such as the Prajñaptivāda ("the nominalists"), as well as the Caitika Mahāsāṃghikas refused to accept the concept of svabhava.Shì hùifēng, "Dependent Origination=Emptiness"—Nāgārjuna's Innovation? An Examination of the Early and Mainstream Sectarian Textual Sources Thus, not all Abhidharma sources defend svabhava. For example, the main topic of the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman (3-4th century CE), an influential Abhidharma text, is the emptiness (shunyata) of dharmas.Skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 2004. pp. 91-92 Indeed, this anti-essentialist nominalism was widespread among the Mahāsāṃghika sects. Another important feature of the Mahāsāṃghika tradition was its unique theory of consciousness. Many of the Mahāsāṃghika sub-schools defended a theory of self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) which held that consciousness can be simultaneously aware of itself as well as its intentional object.Yao, Zhihua (2005). The Buddhist Theory of Self-Cognition, p. 15. Some of these schools also held that the mind's nature (cittasvabhāva) is fundamentally pure (mulavisuddha), but it can be contaminated by adventitious defilements.Skorupski, Tadeusz. “Consciousness and Luminosity in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism.” In Buddhist Philosophy and Meditation Practice: Academic Papers Presented at the 2nd IABU Conference Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Main Campus Wang Noi, Ayutthaya, Thailand, 31 May–2 June 2012.