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

THE TWO NIRVANA THEORY IN THE EARLY CANON
‘One with sons grieves because of (his) sons’, said the blessed One.
‘Similarly the cattle-owner grieves because of (his) cows. For acquisitions
(upadhi) are grief for a man. Whoever is without acquisitions
does not grieve.’ 24
K. R. Norman regards these two verses as ‘a punning exchange of words
based upon the two meanings of upadhi’: 25 ‘objects which one amasses’ and
‘the love and affection which one has for such things, which form an attachment
and lead one back to rebirth’. While the reference of upadhi, or acquisition,
in the first verse is objects themselves, such as sons and cows, the exact
meaning in the second is not the objects themselves, but love or affection for
such objects.
For example, the images or memories of his beloved cause pain to a man
who has been dumped by his lover. He undergoes pain and this pain is not
caused directly by the beloved one, but by his subjective affection for her.
Once he overcomes his attachment, there is no more pain in him even if the
beloved one is still around.
In CPD, this double aspect is explained as follows: 26 just as kAma means,
objectively, the objects of sensual enjoyment and, subjectively, enjoyment of
those objects and sense-desire, upadhi thus means, objectively, possessions,
belongings, and subjectively the attachment to, affection for, clinging to these
possessions. It is thus equated with taOhA, AdAna, upAdAna, Asava, kamma, and
in later systematisation particularly with kAmA, khandhA, kilesA, abhisaWkhArA,
all of which are causes or bases of rebirth.
In the Sammasanasutta in the SaNyuttanikAya, upadhi is used in much the
same way as upAdAna in the context of dependent origination. 27
Where there is upadhi, there comes to be old-age and death
( jarAmaraOa); where upadhi is not, old-age and death come not to
be. . . . Where there is thirst (taOhA), there upadhi comes to be. Where
thirst is not, upadhi comes not to be.
In other words, the two words can be used almost synonymously in this
subjective sense. What is the relevance of this similarity? I think this could
explain the well known problem that upAdisesa is the Pali equivalent of
upadhiUeLa in Buddhist Sanskrit.
K. R. Norman has said: ‘the difference between the two was of course
noticed long ago, yet little effort has been made to explain why they are different’.
This difference eventually leads him to suggest another etymology,
upa adhi/ati √UiL (to leave), positing that these two phrases must originally
have had the same meaning. Thus, the whole term originally consists not of
two words meaning ‘a remainder of clinging’ but of a single word meaning
simply ‘a remainder’. In fact, the Chinese translation of this word before
Hiuan-tsang, who translates this words as yu-yi ( ), ‘a remainder of
17