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

INTRODUCTION
and leave little trace. Unless its contextual as well as historical features are
fully understood, it could be almost impossible to clarify correctly what a
certain metaphorical explanation in the sEtra meant. Moreover, the attitude
of the abhidharmic masters towards the early canon tended to pay ‘too much
attention to the precise words used and not enough to the speaker’s intention,
the sprit of the text’. 9
This unintentional literalism, when coupled with the metaphorical structure
of a certain teaching in the sEtra, could easily trigger early changes
in meaning and then the difference between the two might well lead to a
doctrinal development in early Buddhism. The early Buddhist concept of
nirvana may be a good example of how delicate it could be when we are
dealing with an early Buddhist concept with a metaphorical nature. The whole
picture of nirvana could not easily be revealed unless we pay full attention
to its contextual and historical features together with its early developments
in the abhidharma, as well as its later developments among Buddhist schools.
Aims and scope
Numerous studies of nirvana have been undertaken since Buddhism began
to be studied in the Western world. There even is a book dedicated to the
history of the Western interpretations of nirvana, 10 yet it is really hard to
find a work devoted entirely to the historical developments of nirvana from
the early canon (sEtra) to the abhidharma and to the treatises (UAstra) in both
Northern and Southern traditions.
One of the common mistakes scholars can make is that their general
explanation of nirvana may represent the view of their favoured Buddhist
school. In other words, their account of the early Buddhist concept of nirvana
sometimes represents a view that is held only by a specific Buddhist school.
If the study of nirvana leans to the early canon (sEtra), the doctrinal
development of nirvana could easily be missed; whereas if the study leans to
the abhidharma and the treatises (UAstra), the early metaphorical nature of
nirvana could easily be ignored. Moreover, the early canon (sEtra) was full
of diverse terms and metaphors. Without considering the doctrinal and historical
context of nirvana, we could easily stick to a partial meaning of a
word in a sEtra and then regard that as the comprehensive meaning of the
word in the entire early canon. Without considering the metaphorical nature
of nirvana, we could not come close to the real picture of nirvana at its early
stage, and as a consequence we could easily miss critical points in the later
exegetical and doctrinal problems concerning nirvana.
When I first read Gombrich’s How Buddhism Began, it was, as described
by Cousins in his review, 11 ‘very stimulating’ and gave me a different view
on some problems concerning the Buddhist concept of nirvana. Two questions
I had before were: why nirvana during life, or enlightenment, was defined as
the cessation of the triple fires of passion, hatred and delusion, 12 while the way
2