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

THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIRVANA
was that there was no complete explanation of the two nirvanas in the
early canon (sEtras) apart from simply mentioning their names: nirvana
with a remainder of clinging (sopadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu) and nirvana without
a remainder of clinging (nirupadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu). The exegesis of
the JñAnaprasthAna starts its explanation of the two nirvana theory as
follows: 7
Although the early canon (sEtras) says that there are two nirvana
elements: nirvana with a remainder of clinging and nirvana without
a remainder of clinging, it does not fully explain their meaning.
Thus, ‘what is nirvana with a remainder of clinging?’ and ‘what is
nirvana without a remainder of clinging?’ were fundamental questions
for that treatise. 8 Since they are not clarified [in the early
canon], they are explained [in the JñAnaprasthAna].
There are two things we cannot ignore in this explanation. First, this seems
to suggest that the above mentioned sEtra in the Chinese Ekottara-Agama 9
explaining the two nirvana theory differently from the Itivuttaka 10 was
neither accepted as an authority nor included within the early canon of the
Sarvastivadins. That is to say, we could say from this passage that that
problematic sEtra in the Chinese Ekottara-Agama was presumably not part
of the Sarvastivadin sEtra collections, even though the whole collection of
their early Agama has not survived.
Second, despite the detailed explanation of the two nirvanas in the Itivuttaka,
that clarification was not accepted as authoritative by the Sarvastivadins.
As seen in Chapter 3, 11 the authenticity of the Pali KhuddakanikAya was not
universally accepted among early Indian Buddhists; and the Itivuttaka was
translated into Chinese only by Xuan-zang in the late seventh century ce. 12
The Itivuttaka may have been known to the northern Buddhists not as a
sEtra but as the chanted verses and the author of the JñAnaprasthAna probably
knew this particular chanted verse since there was a strong internal
relationship between them. 13
In fact, the explanation of the two nirvanas in the JñAnaprasthAna does
not seem to be linked closely to the dharma theory of the Sarvastivada in its
fully developed form. For example, it prefers vitality (Ayus), which can easily
be found in the early canon, to the vital organ ( jCvitendriya), which is an
abhidharmic word, especially for the Sarvastivadins, one of the fourteen
dharmas not associated with the mind (cittaviprayuktasaNskAra). Moreover,
there was no clear clarification of the relationship between two nirvanas and
extinction through knowledge (pratisaNkhyAnirodha), the Sarvastivada
equivalent of nirvana, in its explanation. Thus, the MahAvibhALAUAstra was
interpreting the two nirvana theory in the JñAnaprasthAna in accordance
with the fully developed form of their dharma theory.
78