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

NIRVANA IN THE THERAVf DA BUDDHIST TRADITION
the space element is rEpa; this is space, atmosphere, cavity, hole, aperture,
gap and what is not touched by the four secondary elements (asamphuMMhaN
catEhi mahAbhEtehi). 119 Later, in the VibhaWga, space was further classified
into external (bAhira) and internal (ajjhattika), with the latter defined as rEpa,
which is space, atmosphere, cavity, hole, aperture, gap and what is not
touched by flesh or blood (asamphuMMhaN maNsalohitehi), such as a cavity of
the ear or the nose. 120
Although Karunadasa has made a comprehensive analysis of the
Theravadins’ idea of matter, his remarks on space are not quite satisfactory.
He has attempted to identify the above internal and external division of
space with the Sarvastivadins’ two kind of space: space (AkAUa) as an unconditioned
thing and space element (AkAUadhAtu) under form (rEpa).
He seems to ignore the fact that the former, AkAUa, for the Sarvastivada is
a real existent (dravya) that by definition (svabhAva) does not obstruct
(anAvaraOa), 121 while the latter, AkAUadhAtu, is just a name given to cavity
(chidra), 122 which is visible matter since it is form (rEpa) next to other visible
matter. 123 For example, we can see space between walls because there are
space elements at the end of, or next to, the visible secondary matter that
forms each visible wall. One thing common to both is that it is something
that occupies what we conventionally call space.
By contrast, the space element in the DhammasaWgaOi is by definition
quite the opposite: it is what is not touched by the four secondary elements
(asamphuMMhaN catEhi mahAbhEtehi). Although the VibhaWga further divided
it into internal and external, they are virtually the same. The internal is by
definition absorbed into the external since flesh and blood are made up of
secondary elements. In this respect, his assigning the space element, especially
the internal space element, to the secondary elements (upAdArEpa) was a
bit far fetched. It was based on the fact that the space element is dependent
on them. In fact, the opposite is also quite possible. Although space is
classed under form (rEpa) owing to its close relationship with the element, it
designates space where there is no secondary element at all. From another
debate in the KathAvatthu, we can actually see this is the case of the
Theravadins.
As an argument against the idea that space is visible, the KathAvatthu asks
if it is possible to say that ‘with the visual faculty and space as condition,
visual consciousness arises’; are there any suttas that have said that? 124 What
is meant here is that when we see space, what has arisen is not visual consciousness
(cakkhuviññAOa) but mental consciousness (manoviññAOa).
Later in its commentary, this was reckoned as mind-door consciousness
(manodvAraviññAOa) under the influence of the Theravadin’s unique fourteen
activities of consciousness (viññAOakicca). 125 For example, when we see space
between walls, our recognition of space results from the mental image of
two walls we have just seen. Although there is no rEpa between the walls,
the cavity between them can be known through the mind. This could further
69