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

NIRVANA IN NORTHERN BUDDHIST SCHOOLS
homogeneous character of the group (nikAyasabhAga) would be useless and
this could be the reason why the relationship between them was sometimes
said to be inseparable. Despite three reasons given above in the text,
this shift of the life faculty’s role seems to be the real reason behind adding
homogeneous character of the group in the interpretation of ‘with a
remainder of clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa) in the MahAvibhALAUAstra. That is to
say, the inclusion of homogeneous character in the two nirvana theory was
mainly responsible for the Sarvastivadins’ abhidharmic systematisation,
especially for the shift of the life faculty’s function along with their doctrinal
development of the fourteen dharmas not associated with the mind
(cittaviprayuktasaNskAra).
How did this change affect the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas’ interpretation
of ‘with a remainder of clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa)? It seems to let them to
interpret clinging (upadhi) differently from the conventional meaning of the
word. In the MahAvibhALAUAstra, clinging (upadhi) is glossed as follows: 39
When saying ‘as there still is a remainder of clinging’, clinging is of
two kinds: clinging as defilement (kleUopadhi) and clinging as birth
body ( janmakAyopadhi). An arahant no longer has the first, the
clinging as defilement, but he still has the second, the clinging as
birth body. Alternatively, clinging is of two kinds: defiled (kliLMa)
clinging and undefiled clinging. An arahant no longer has the first;
while he still has the second. 40
Here the word clinging refers to two different things: defilement and birth
body ( janmakAya). In ‘Etymology of upAdi’ in Chapter 2, I focused on the
double aspect of the word upAdi: subjective and objective. In the subjective
sense, it denotes defilements in general as the main cause of continuous
rebirth and is used in the context of the four noble persons; in the objective
sense, it means the ‘fuel’ of a fire underlining ‘the five aggregates’ in a
metaphorical structure and is used in the context of nirvana. At this late
stage, when the MahAvibhALAUAstra was composed, its objective meaning
seems to have been long forgotten. This seems to have caused one serious
problem to later masters of the abhidharma.
Two nirvanas, nirvana with a remainder of clinging (sopadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu)
and nirvana without a remainder of clinging (nirupadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu),
could not be differentiated simply by the existence of defilement,
the subjective aspect of the word clinging (upadhi), since both nirvanas no
longer had any defilement left. Although what clinging (upadhi) refers to is
supposed to make a difference, ‘defilement’, the widely circulated meaning of
the word upadhi at that time, could not differentiate between the two nirvanas.
In the first opinion, the difference between the two was made not by the
existence of ‘defilement’ but by the existence of ‘birth body’ ( janmakAya). In
81