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

INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
In the AbhidharmakoUabhALya, the exposition offered by the early canon is
often described as contingent (AbhiprAyika), 1 in contrast to the definitive
(lAkLaOika) exposition of the abhidharma.
One of the problems concerning the truth of the origin of the suffering,
the second noble truth, is, as asked in the MahAvibhALAUAstra, ‘All the impure
dharmas can be the cause and thus the truth of the origin. Why then does
the Blessed one say that only thirst (tKLOA) is the truth of the origin and not
others?’ 2 In some sEtras it is only thirst (tKLOA), 3 while in some other sEtras it
is action (karma), desire (tKLOA) and ignorance (avidyA). 4 Although we do
not need to go through all thirty answers put forward by the Sarvastivada-
Vaibhalikas in the MahAvibhALAUAstra, we have to realise that the discrepancies
among scattered quotations from the early canon (sEtras) became a
serious problem for the masters of the abhidharma, especially when they
wanted to define a certain concept, like the second noble truth. One of the
answers to the above question given by Vasubandhu in the sixth chapter
of the AbhidharmakoUabhALya was as follows: ‘Because the elucidation is
contingent (AbhiprAyika) in the sEtras, yet definitive (lAkLaOika) in the
abhidharma.’ 5 ‘Contingent’ (AbhiprAyika), derived from abhiprê (to approach),
seems to mean ‘dependent on context’ and, thus, means that the exposition
of sEtras depends largely on taking words in their context, in contrast to the
definition-based explanation of the abhidharma. 6 That is to say, Vasubandhu
tends to stick to the definitional explanation of the abhidharma, while also
trying to find a reasonable explanation by considering the contextual nature
of the sEtras. 7 The situation in the Pali Theravada tradition is no different.
As pointed out by Gombrich in his book How Buddhism Began, the mode of
teaching applied in the suttas is often expressed as pariyAyena, ad hominem,
discursive, applied method, illustrated discourse, figurative language, as
against nippariyAyena, the abstract, general states of abhidhamma. 8
If the relatively straightforward explanation of the sEtra mentioned above
caused problems for the masters of the abhidharma, how problematic it must
have been if the sEtra used metaphor. Unlike the above case, which still leaves
scattered traces, the metaphorical structure could easily have been forgotten
1