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

THE DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT OF NIRVANA
my opinion, this new exegesis only became possible through the inclusion of
‘homogeneous character of the group’ in the content of ‘with a remainder of
clinging’ (saupadhiUeLa).
In the early abhidharma works of the Sarvastivadins, the function of
homogeneous character of the group was linked exclusively to the rebirth
process and was described as a dharma that determines the specific rebirth
state of sentient beings. 41 Although homogeneous character (sabhAgatA) was
described later in the second chapter of the AbhidharmakoUabhALya as
an abstract principle of universality or homogeneity by which entities are
recognized as members of the same category or class, 42 its original usage was
retained in the fourth chapter of the AbhidharmakoUabhALya in the discussion
of whether one action (karma) projects one birth or many births. The
formal answer for the Sarvastivadins was ‘one [action] projects one birth’
(ekaN janmAkLipatyekam) and ‘birth’ here was glossed as the homogeneous
character of the group (nikAyasabhAga). 43
We can trace this back to the lengthy discussion in the MahAvibhALAUAstra
of whether an action (karma) of a moment projects one or many homogeneous
characters of the group. 44 The Sarvastivada-Vaibhalika answer was that
‘an action (karma) of a moment projects only one homogeneous character
of the group’. If an action can project many homogeneous characters of the
group, one should admit that the same action (karma) could result in both
birth as a human being and birth in hell and the same maturation (vipAka)
could lead to both birth as a human being and birth in hell. 45 If many
actions can together project one homogeneous character of the group, the
projection of existence would take place in parts, since some actions lead to
birth in hell while some actions lead to birth as a human being. 46
We can see the same position taken in the third option for the inclusion of
homogeneous character of the group in the context of ‘with a remainder of
clinging’: ‘both the life faculty and the homogeneous character of the group
are the result of an action that projects existence (AkLepakakarman)’. 47 This
identification of birth ( janman) with homogeneous character of the group
(nikAyasabhAga) could allow the Sarvastivada-Vaibhalikas to distinguish
nirvana with a remainder of clinging (sopadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu) from
nirvana without a remainder of clinging (nirupadhiUeLanirvAOadhAtu) by the
word ‘birth body’ ( janmakAya).
In ‘The Sarvastivada interpretation in the JñAnaprasthAna’ in Chapter 3, I
showed that the JñAnaprasthAna explanation of the two nirvanas could be
half way between the old clarification by the existence of the five faculties
( pañcindriyAni) in the Itivuttaka 48 and this new distinction by the existence
of vitality (Ayu) in the later systematisation. Later in the MahAvibhALAUAstra,
the author went a step further to remove all remaining traces of the old
Itivuttaka explanation.
The MahAvibhALAUAstra presented an anonymous opinion of the two
nirvana theory at the end of both exegeses on nirvana with and without
82