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

THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIRVANA
Theravada exegetical tradition, 102 the old usage of the word nirvana, which
was applied to the two most important events in the Buddha’s life: enlightenment
and final liberation at death. 103
Second, the word anuUaya (latent defilement) was used in the case of
nirvana with a remainder of clinging, in contrast to the usual word ‘defilement’
(kleUa/kilesa) 104 or ‘impurity’ (Asrava) 105 preferred by the Theravadins
and the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas. In fact, this small terminological shift
seems to be the key to understanding how nirvana was explained in the
Sautrantika system.
In general, latent defilement was, according to Jaini, 106 ‘always used in the
sense of a bias, a proclivity, a persistence of a dormant or latent disposition
of mind leading to all kinds of evil volitions’. While the terms kleUa
and Asrava tend to designate defilements in general, anuUaya refers only to
defilements in their latent state. In the AbhidharmakoUabhALya, this lantent
defilement was explained as sleeping ( prasupta) defilement, in contrast to
paryavasthAna, which was explained as awakened (prabuddha) defilement.
The former was further commented on this: ‘in the non-manifested state,
it persists in the state of being seed (bCjabhAva)’, whereas the latter was
commented on as ‘manifested state’ (saNmukhCbhAva). 107 The relationship
between these terms is summarised in Table 5.2.
What could be the reason why the Sautrantikas, the followers of the
sEtras, had to explain nirvana with a term, anuUaya, that was not at all common
in the early canon? The answer seems to be closely related to one of the
ontological problems they had to face, especially against the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalikas, who insisted on the existence of all dharmas in the three time
periods while accepting the momentariness of conditioned dharmas.
Within the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalika system, these two apparently opposing
views were skilfully reconciled by saying that what changes each moment is
not the intrinsic nature (svabhAva) of a dharma but its activities – arising,
duration, decay and ceasing – through its inherent characteristic (svalakLaOa)
of impermanence. 108 By contrast, the Sautrantikas did not accept the idea
that all dharmas exist in the three time periods and maintained that there is
no difference between the intrinsic nature of a dharma and its activities.
What changes momentarily is thus dharmas themselves: their existence is
constituted by their activities. 109
The outcome of this Sautrantika ontological perspective was that a causal
relationship could be established only between a moment and the immediately
preceding moment. In other words, causal efficacy from the more
Table 5.2 KleUa and anuUaya from the Sautrantika viewpoint
kleUa
paryavasthAna manifested state (saNmukhCbhAva)
anuUaya state of being seed (bCjabhAva)
92