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

CONCLUSION
The term anAgAmin was often replaced in the early canon with the expression
‘of a nature not to return from that world’ (anAvatti-dhammo tasmA
lokA), 4 which refers to ‘liberation’ in the early UpaniLads. 5 That is to say, this
term seems to have been used as a kind of metaphor for the lay equivalent
of the renunciate saint.
When the word clinging (upadhi) was interpreted later in the
MahAvibhALAUAstra, the objective meaning of the word, the fuel of a fire
underlying the five aggregates in a metaphorical structure, seems to have
been long forgotten, while defilement, the widely circulated meaning of the
word, could not satisfy the masters of the abhidharma because it did not
differentiate between the two nirvanas. The Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas ended
up by introducing ‘birth body’ ( janmakAya) as a new referent for ‘with a
remainder of clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa). 6 Although it can differentiate between
the two nirvanas, this interpretation could only be justified through their
own abhidharma system.
Second, ever since the state of the TathAgata after death became one of
the unanswered questions, there have been numerous attempts to fill ‘the
silence of the Buddha’ by gathering relevant passages in the early canon
(sEtra). Most plausible claims so far have been made through clarifying
the image of a fire extinguished, either from the Brahmanic or from the
Buddhist sources. The argument depends largely on the logic that to the
Buddha’s audience this image could not have appeared as annihilation, as it
does to modern eyes equipped with the image of scientific combustion. Those
equipped with the allegedly common Indian view, which could be traced
back to the UpaniLads, 7 may have thought that a fire when extinguished
does not really go out but goes back into a non-manifested or invisible state.
Some scholars accordingly have insisted that the state of TathAgata after
death could not be any kind of annihilation. What has been lacking in this
apparently solid argument seems to have been attention to the methodological
and historical context of the image of a fire extinguished, especially as
used in the dialogue between the Buddha and Vacchagotta. 8
Unlike in the UpaniLadic methodology, where things were explained
through the hierarchical relationship between essence and phenomenon, or
subject within and object outside, the Buddha explains things according to
their causes (yoniso manasikAra). That is to say, he explains things through
the causal relationship between phenomena and, as a consequence, there is
no room for any essence, like Brahman, or subject, like Atman, that is beyond
the range of this causality. Behind this allegedly common Indian view, there
is a hierarchical relationship between the imperishable essential character
(liWga) 9 and phenomenal fires. When the Buddha asked Vacchagotta, ‘This
fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction – to the east, west,
north or south – has it gone from here?’, 10 he seems to have been arguing
specifically against such a view by asking how we could justify anything
beyond the range of phenomenal causality.
107