05.03.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

THE TWO NIRVANA THEORY IN THE EARLY CANON<br />

However, this hierarchical structure becomes ‘physically unbridgeable’ 157<br />

at a certa<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t. Practis<strong>in</strong>g the way of non-return leads to the vanish<strong>in</strong>g<br />

of the five lower fetters <strong>and</strong>, as a consequence, one has achieved the fruit of<br />

the non-return: spontaneously ris<strong>in</strong>g (opapAtika) <strong>and</strong> then reach<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>al<br />

nirvana without ever return<strong>in</strong>g from that world. Consider<strong>in</strong>g the early<br />

Buddhist promise of reach<strong>in</strong>g sa<strong>in</strong>thood (arahant) <strong>in</strong> this very life (diMMhe va<br />

dhamme), it is almost impossible for the same person to practise the way of<br />

sa<strong>in</strong>thood after reach<strong>in</strong>g the fruit of non-return. This obvious gap could<br />

suggest that before the two noble persons, the non-returner <strong>and</strong> the sa<strong>in</strong>t<br />

(arahant), were placed <strong>in</strong> this hierarchical structure, they had already been<br />

conceptualised separately. In other words, the non-returner was orig<strong>in</strong>ally<br />

conceived not as an <strong>in</strong>termediate state on the way to arahantship but as an<br />

<strong>in</strong>dependent state almost correspond<strong>in</strong>g to nirvana.<br />

With<strong>in</strong> the early Buddhist canon, the word non-returner (anagam<strong>in</strong>) was<br />

sometimes replaced by the expression ‘of a nature not to return from that<br />

world (anAvatti-dhammo tasmA lokA)’. This expression seems to correspond<br />

to the early UpaniLadic idea of liberation described <strong>in</strong> two of the oldest<br />

UpaniLads: the BKhadAraOyaka UpaniLad <strong>and</strong> the ChAndogya UpaniLad. 158<br />

It is well known that at the time of the Veda, liv<strong>in</strong>g for 100 years was<br />

compared to immortality. 159 From the BrAhmaOa period, the idea of a next<br />

life was <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>and</strong> it consisted of two worlds: the world of gods<br />

(devaloka), which is deathless, <strong>and</strong> the world of fathers (pitKloka), where<br />

there are endless rebirths, i.e. people die aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> (punar mKtyu). 160<br />

When it comes to the early UpaniLadic period, the world of Brahman<br />

(brahmaloka) was regarded as the highest <strong>and</strong> one who succeeded <strong>in</strong> reach<strong>in</strong>g<br />

this world through knowledge <strong>and</strong> sacrifice was believed not to return to<br />

the human condition aga<strong>in</strong>: he is liberated from endless rebirth. <strong>The</strong><br />

BKhadAraOyaka UpaniLad, which is believed to predate <strong>Buddhism</strong>, expla<strong>in</strong>s<br />

this state as follows: ‘A person consist<strong>in</strong>g of m<strong>in</strong>d comes to the regions of<br />

lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> leads him to the worlds of Brahman. <strong>The</strong>se exalted people live<br />

<strong>in</strong> those worlds of Brahman for the longest time. <strong>The</strong>y do not return (na<br />

punar AvKttiP).’ 161 In the ChAndogya UpaniLad, those who proceed along the<br />

Brahman path <strong>and</strong> reach the world of Brahman are likewise said not to<br />

return to this human condition aga<strong>in</strong>. 162<br />

This early UpaniLadic idea of liberation seems to correspond to the Buddhist<br />

expression ‘of a nature not to return from that world (anAvatti-dhammo<br />

tasmA lokA )’, which sometimes replaces the word non-returner (anAgAm<strong>in</strong>)<br />

<strong>in</strong> the Buddhist canon. <strong>The</strong> difference between the two concepts seems to be<br />

on ontological one. While <strong>in</strong> the UpaniLad the person does not return to the<br />

human condition as he stays there, <strong>in</strong> the world of Brahman, forever as a<br />

liberated soul, the person <strong>in</strong> <strong>Buddhism</strong> does not return s<strong>in</strong>ce he is about to<br />

be f<strong>in</strong>ally liberated there. However, they share the idea of the f<strong>in</strong>al departure<br />

from the human condition towards liberation.<br />

33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!