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

THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIRVANA
And by the two kinds [past and present] of defilements, the state of
being seed (bCjabhAva) is implanted in this series to arise in future.
Through the abandonment of that [seed], that [defilement] too is
abandoned. In the same way as through exhausting maturation
(vipAka), action (karma) is exhausted. 115
Within the theory of seed, the mechanism of producing its result was
explained by the special transformation of a series (saNtAnapariOAmaviUeLa). 116
It is applied within the AbhidharmakoUabhALya to explain various phenomena
that could be awkward to explain from the Sautrantika’s extreme ontological
position: for instance, the continuation of defilements in the form of anuUaya
seen above, the continuation of our memory 117 and the continuation of the
efficacy of past action (karma) through its maturation (vipAka). 118
Vasubandhu seems to use it as a hidden weapon to defend the Sautrantika’s
position when asked how a past momentary cause can produce a present
momentary result. In this respect, it mainly replaces the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalika’s theory of acquisition (prApti). 119 In the second chapter of the
AbhidharmakoUabhALya, these terms were glossed as follows:
What then is called seed (bCja)? It is name and form (nAmarEpa)
capable of producing a result either immediately or mediately
through the special transformation (pariOAmaviUeLa) of a series
(santati). What is here called transformation (pariOAma)? It is continuing
differently [from before]. What then is here called series
(santati)? It is saNskArA of the three time periods in the state of
being cause and result. 120
When a certain cause was given, the latent capability to produce its result
was implanted in 121 the series of aggregates and passed along through the
successive moments of the aggregates that continue the causal relationship
between a moment and the immediately preceding moment until it produces
its result. In other words, the original cause in the past is not a direct cause
of the result because its role is initiating a long sequence of powers to
produce its result in the future.
What makes this Buddhist transformation (pariOAma) different from the
Sawkhya concept of transformation is that for the former transformation is
a sequence of momentary phenomena arising differently from before, while
for the latter transformation is a manifestation of material nature (prakKti)
that essentially remains the same.
Although this original cause ceased momentarily in the past, its result
will be realised at the last special (viUeLa) moment of the transformation
(pariOAma). 122 This is explained in the last chapter of the AbhidharmakoUabhALya
as follows:
94