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

NIRVANA IN NORTHERN BUDDHIST SCHOOLS
Since homogeneous character was regarded as non-existent, the Sautrantika
interpretation of ‘with a remainder of clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa) depends solely
on how they saw life faculty ( jCvitendriya). Although it too was not regarded
as a real existent, like homogeneous character (sabhAgatA ), it was treated
slightly differently in the AbhidharmakoUabhALya. It said, ‘We do not say
it does not exist at all, yet say it is not a real existent’. 85 This means that it
is not a real existent (dravya) but a name (prajñapti) given to a certain
phenomenon.
Vasubandhu’s answer for that was as follows: ‘momentum (Avedha) at the
time of placing homogeneous character of the group (nikAyasabhAga) through
an [previous] action in the three worlds’. 86
Homogeneous character of the group (nikAyasabhAga) mentioned here
seems to retain its old usage, functioning exclusively in the rebirth process
mentioned above, 87 and is somehow different from the abstract principle
that has just been rejected. It is the direct result of an action that projects
new existence (AkLepakakarman), 88 and is glossed in the SphuMArthA
AbhidharmakoUavyAkhyA as ‘it is saNskArA of that kind that have the aggregates,
such as material form, as their intrinsic nature’. 89
What is said in this passage is that life faculty is not a real existent but a
name given to a certain power of the series of aggregates (skandhasaNtAna)
initiated directly by an action that projects new existence (AkLepakakarman)
at the moment of conception. We can compare the position of the
Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas and of the Sautrantikas through the simile of shooting
an arrow seen in the AbhidharmakoUabhALya. 90
The former, the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas, believed that the destiny of an
arrow and the time it will take to reach its destination can be determined by
a certain sort of quality (guOa), or possibly saNskAra, that arises separately
in the arrow through the impetus and the direction of the arrow at the
moment of the shooting. As a consequence, the destiny and the duration of
a sentient being, or technically a series of aggregates, are determined by
separate dharmas, i.e. life faculty ( jCvitendriya) and homogenous character
of the group (nikAyasabhAga), which arise from an action that projects new
existence.
By contrast, the latter, the Sautrantikas, believed that the destiny of an
arrow and the time it will take to reach its destination are initiated directly
by the impetus and the direction of the arrow at the moment of the shooting.
Thus, the destiny and the duration of a sentient being, or technically of a
series of aggregates (skandhasaNtAna), are initiated directly by the action that
projects new existence (AkLepakakarman) at the moment of conception. 91
This seems to explain why the Sautrantikas were also known as the
Sawkrantivadins, those who maintain the transference of the aggregates
(skandhas) seen in the Chinese translation of the Vasumitra’s Samayabhedoparacanacakra.
92 Within the Sautrantika system, the transmigration from
one world to the other can be explained exclusively by the series of aggregates.
89