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

THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIRVANA
but this [single goal, nibbana,] is firstly called with result of past
clinging left since it is made known together with the [aggregates
resulting from past] clinging still remaining [during the arahant’s
life], being thus made known in terms of the stilling of defilement
and the remaining [result of past] clinging that are present in one
who has reached it by means of development. But [secondly, it is
called without result of past clinging left] since after the last consciousness
of the arahant, who has abandoned arousing [future
aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving result in a future
[existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence,
and those already arisen have disappeared. So the [result of past]
clinging that remained is non-existent; and it is in terms of this
non-existence, in the sense that there is no [result of past] clinging
here, that that [same goal is called] without result of past clinging
left. 74
Although Buddhaghosa’s explanation largely follows the Theravada exegetical
explanations of the two nirvana elements mentioned above, he adds
some interesting remarks to clarify the final nirvana.
For the SarvAstivAdins nirvana is, as mentioned above, a real existent
(dravya) and is understood in a narrow sense applied to a single perpetual
prevention of a certain defilement; 75 whereas for the Sautrantikas nirvana is
not a real existent (dravyasat) but a mere designation (prajñaptisat), something
spoken of conventionally, as well as ‘non-existence succeeding existence
(paUcAdabhAva)’, like a sound that is non-existent before and will be
non-existent after its occurrence. 76
Although the Theravadins do not accept the idea that nirvana is mere
non-existence, 77 the way Buddhaghosa explains nirvana without a remainder
of clinging reminds us of the Sautrantikas’ perspective, especially when
he says ‘there is no further arising of aggregates of existence and those
already arisen have disappeared’. 78 This could lead us to assume that the two
nirvana theory was introduced by Buddhaghosa, a northerner, who went to
Ceylon (Sri Lanka) early in the fifth century ce, and it is probably one of the
reasons why Peter Masefield has argued that the two nirvana theory could
only be traced back as far as Buddhaghosa.
However, we can see a prototype of this interpretation in the Nettippakarana
and the PeMakopadesa. Modern scholars have rejected the traditional
Buddhist claim that both these texts were established at around the time of
the first council by one of the Buddha’s disciples, Maha-Kacca(ya)na. 79 He
was, according to early suttas, 80 known as ‘foremost of those who analyse in
detail what has been stated in brief’, and appears to have lived mostly in the
rather remote south-west Kingdom of Avanti. 81 From this, Ñyaoamoti surmises
that this compendious method could have been handed down orally in
some skeleton form and then at some time between Asoka and the first
46