Metaphysical Realism and Queerness in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma

This paper attempts to discuss the implication of metaphysical realism in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma on their understanding of queerness. Not only nirvāṇa, but even the fruit of stream-enterer, is deemed impossible for people with non-normative sex. The research questions include: why Sarvāstivādins regard people with non-normative sex as incapable of attaining liberatory fruits? What kind of arguments do they provide? Are these arguments consistent or self-contradictory? This research aims to examine early developments in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma in relation to queer identities.

Sarvāstivādins mainly rely on two sex faculties (Skt.: indriya; Chi.: 根) to establish categories of sex and gender and to construct their normativity. Depending on the quantity and quality of the two indriyas, people are categorized into men, women, no-form (Skt.: avyañjana; Chi.: 無形), two-forms (Skt.: ubhayavyañjana; Chi.: 二形), ṣaṇḍha, paṇḍaka, etc. Looking into different strata of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma texts, from earlier texts such as the *Dharmaskandha and the *Prakaraṇapāda, to relatively later texts such as the *Jñānaprasthāna and the *Mahāvibhāṣa, and finally to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, and the *Nyāyānusāra, it can be found that the two indriyas gradually transform from being purely “descriptive” to being both “descriptive” and “evaluative.” An evaluative, or soteriological purpose is gradually incorporated into these two sex faculties. Not only moral actions but also liberatory actions are associated with the endowment of a normal sex indriya. Biologically queer people are deemed incapable of performing extremely good or bad actions. They also cannot practice towards liberation and attain śramaṇa fruits, according to Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma.

This evaluative turn happens alongside a metaphysical turn towards realism with the systematic development of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. In an earlier stratum of text such as *Dharmaskandha sex indriyas are only associated with sexual pleasure. This stratum of texts also does not have metaphysical speculations of the makeup of these indriyas, as well as their ultimate entity. Starting from the *Prakaraṇapāda and the *Jñānaprasthāna, the discussion of the entity (Skt.: dravya; Chi.: ti體) of sex indriyas appears and they are regarded as part of body indriya (身根少分), without their own separate entity, and are listed among 22 indriyas. The main reason for their being within the list of twenty-two indriyas, the *Mahāvibhāṣa argues, is the influence of their normativity on one’s capacity for liberation. Different from the *Dharmaskandha, which mainly differentiates between men and women, the *Mahāvibhāṣa’s discussion of sex faculties shifts to normative VS non-normative sex.

It is also in the *Mahāvibhāṣa that the metaphysical realistic stance of Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma is most clearly articulated. Male indriya and female indriya are made up of differently shaped of atoms, which are independent of mind. This metaphysical realism stance resulted in a biologically deterministic view of sex and gender. The exegetical difficulty caused by this view lies in how the normativity of sex faculties, purely physical, would affect one’s capacity for liberation. To fill in this gap, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya brings in a simile. The bodily base/support (āśraya) is like a land, and those bodies with non-normative sex faculties are simply barren lands, where plants, referring to a sharp and strong āśaya, cannot grow. In this way, Vasubandhu forms a connection between āśraya and āśaya. A person with non-normative sex can never have sharp āśaya, just like a plant is not able to grow in a barren land. Bodies with non-normative sex faculties are like that barren land and sharp āśaya is like that plant. Āśaya, which has a range of meanings such as inclination, intention, or will, is left untranslated by Xuanzang, who only provides a transliteration Ashiye 阿世耶. With no sharp āśaya, discernment (Skt.: pratisaṃkhyā, Chi.: 擇) is also not possible, which is crucial in all stages of practice in Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma. To attain enlightenment, one must utilize discernment to achieve “cessation through discernment” (Skt.: pratisaṅkhyānirodha, Chi.: zemie 擇滅). The claim that people with non-normative sex are unable to have pratisaṃkhyā directly prevents them from attaining the Śramaṇa fruits such as the Arhat fruit or the stream-enterer fruit, which have pratisaṃkhyānirodha as their nature.

The more difficult task for Sarvāstivādins’ exegetical attempt is to provide the reasons why bodies with non-normative sex faculty necessarily cannot support strong āśaya and thus pratisaṃkhyā. To explain this, the *Mahāvibhāṣa utilizes the concepts of desire-followers (Skt.: tṛṣṇācarita; Chi.: aixing zhe愛行者) and view-followers (Skt.: dṛṣṭicaritas; Chi.: jianxing zhe 見行者). It asserts that individuals can be categorized as either tṛṣṇācaritas or dṛṣṭicaritas, with no one in between. According to this perspective, individuals with non-normative sex are considered tṛṣṇācaritas due to their excessive desires. As tṛṣṇācaritas, they are believed to lack sharp views, strong will, and the ability to discern the dharma. However, there are two main issues with this argument. Firstly, it is difficult to establish why individuals with non-normative sex necessarily have lots of desires. Secondly, it is unclear why excessive desire would hinder one's ability to have a strong will and the ability to discern dharmas. Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣa does not consistently adhere to its own claim when utilizing these two categories. In one passage, both tṛṣṇācaritas and dṛṣṭicaritas are considered capable of attaining "true nature free from arising (of defilement)" (Skt.: niyāmāvakrānti, Chi.: zhengxing lisheng 正性離生), which refers to the attainment of stream-entering fruit. They just have to use different dharma gates (famen 法門). This shows that even within Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma, there are sprouts of later Mahāyāna thought that every person has the potential to liberate with proper skillful means. However, Sarvāstivādins cannot consistently argue for this because they have a clear metaphysical realistic stance that they are ardently defending. The inconsistencies in these arguments sheds light on the challenges faced by the early Buddhist community in establishing a doctrinal system that supports the exclusion of non-binary people. This understanding can help modern Buddhist communities challenge this exclusion and foster a more inclusive community.