Metaphor and Literalism in Buddhism: The ... - misterdanger.net

NIRVANA IN NORTHERN BUDDHIST SCHOOLS
but must postdate the composition of the MahAvibhALAUAstra, and that
Kumaralata was probably the teacher both of Harivarman and of vrclata,
who was the direct teacher of Vasubandhu. 65 Kato has also contested the
chronological view based on the above comment that the earlier term
Darlmantika was replaced by the term Sautrantika in the later period. He
suggests that the name Sautrantikas had a positive connotation and was
used by the group itself to refer to its own views, whereas Darlmantikas has
a negative connotation and was used by opponents, such as the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalikas. 66
Whether this group was called the Darlmantikas or the Sautrantikas, we
still do not know it was established as an independent sect with its own
vinaya. As pointed out by Cox, it emerged just prior to the composition of
the MahAvibhALAUAstra not as a distinct ordination lineage or sect, but as
a dogmatically defined group or school that objected to the Sarvastivada
doctrinal interpretation. 67
The SautrAntikas and the two nirvana theory
Although the Sautrantikas may have produced their own exegetical treatises,
such as the SautrAntikavibhALA, none of them has survived in a complete
form. From the citations attributed to Sthavira, possibly vrclata,
in Sawghabhadra’s NyAyAnusAra, we assume that they may have systematically
composed exegetical treatises to the abhidharma texts and treatises
of the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas. 68 None the less, what we see from the
AbhidharmakoUabhALya is that they were vicious critics of the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalikas, especially of their dharma theory.
In his work, Vasubandhu was largely following the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalika system, while making critical comments on points that he, or the
Sautrantikas, did not agree with. Since there is no complete explanation of
the two nirvana theory in the AbhidharmakoUabhALya, we can assume that
he was roughly following the explanation of the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas
seen in the JñAnaprasthAna 69 and the MahAvibhALAUAstra. 70 However, there is
a substantial difference from the detailed analysis of the characteristics of
dharmas involved in the two nirvana theory.
The interpretation of ‘with a remainder of clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa) has
been the heart of understanding the two nirvana theory. For the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalikas, it was, as seen before, 71 both life faculty ( jCvitendriya) and
homogeneous character of the group (nikAyasabhAga), according to the
MahAvibhALAUAstra. As far as the Sautrantikas were concerned, this interpretation
could not be accepted, since both dharmas belonged to the fourteen
dharmas not associated with the mind (cittaviprayuktasaNskAra), which
they did not accept as real existents.
Although Vasubandhu denied that both dharmas were real existents, the
way in which he rejected them was different. While the first, life faculty, he
87