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

NIRVANA IN NORTHERN BUDDHIST SCHOOLS
duration, decay and ceasing, of that defilement in this series. This dharma is
the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalika’s equivalent of nirvana and is explained as ‘cessation
(nirodha) that is acquired through the cutting of the acquisition of
defilement’. Thus, this cessation exists separately from defilement (kleUa) in
this system. In other words, cessation is one thing and defilement is another
in the compound ‘the cessation of defilement’ (kleUanirodha).
By contrast, ‘destroying a defilement’ in the Sautrantika system could
only be done by destroying the corresponding latent defilement (anuUaya),
which is in the state of seed (bCja), that is to say, the power (Uakti) of a series
of aggregates (skandhasaNtAna) to produce this defilement in the future, a
power that has been conveyed through the causal relationship between a
moment and the immediately preceding moment. 151 As said above, this kind
of Sautrantikan causal relationship cannot be established between cessation
and defilement and thus this compound, ‘the cessation of defilement’, can
only mean mere negation, i.e. the non-existence of that defilement.
Stopping the conveyance of a power to produce defilement in the future
means that the Sautrantika equivalent of ‘the cessation of defilement’ is
future non-arising of a defilement. The obvious question put forward by the
Sarvastivada-Vaibhalika will be, ‘How can one acquire cessation, or nirvana,
at the present time?’ That is to say, how could we know whether a certain
defilement is destroyed by destroying the corresponding latent defilement?
The answer from the Sautrantikas was, as seen before, that it could be
done by changing the support (AUraya), the series of aggregates, from a
normal state of having a power to produce a defilement in the future to a
special (viUeLa) state of lacking that power to produce a defilement. 152 Therefore
there is no need for the Sautrantikas to accept a separate dharma apart
from defilement in the compound ‘the cessation of defilement’ (kleUanirodha).
Second, the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas used the locative case to insist that
nirvana as non-appearance exists separately: 153
[Vaibhalikas] Why do you not want to interpret as ‘because it does
not appear in that, it is non-appearance’? [Sautrantikas] We do not
consider this locative case possible. [Vaibhalikas] What is meant?
[Sautrantikas] If when one says ‘It does not appear in that [nirvana]’
it is further meant that ‘that [nirvana]’ exists, then it would follow
that attachment permanently does not appear, since nirvana is
permanent. When one says, then, ‘obtained’, that is to say, ‘that
[nirvana] was obtained’ is referred to, you should admit ‘the nonappearance
of suffering’ when the noble path is attained. 154
Under the influence of the Buddhist theory of momentariness, 155 the concept
of nirvana was changed dramatically: it prefers non-arising to cessation or
extinction. When saying momentary dharma, it means that this dharma is in
the state of arising, duration, decay and ceasing constantly. Ceasing simply
99