Exploring the Concept of Dhammakāya in Pali Canonical Texts : หน้า 35/141

Of the three canonical passages mentioned above, only the first, namely the Aggañña-sutta passage, contains the term dhammakāya, while the other two do not. The reason for which all these passages are employed as being Pali references to dhammakāya is the seeming identification of the Buddha and his teachings. This may reflect the scholarly methodology employed whereby previous studies were set off from a preconception regarding the early meaning of dhammakāya,14 as if the term dhammakāya/dharmakāya was exclusively related to the Buddha. The present study employs a different approach. Rather than beginning from the preconception of such an exclusive relation of the term to the Buddha, it simply starts from listing Pali canonical passages in which the term dhammakāya appears. The use and meaning of the term dhammakāya in each passage is then assessed, by means of text critical analysis, from each passage’s environmental setting. On providing interpretations, it considers the philosophical background existing in the Pali canonical context as a key tool to determine the intention of particular expressions. A review of contemporary academic interpretations will be made according to each particular passage as we proceed. By means of a neutral method of assessment, it hopes to provide resultant interpretations which are more direct and inclusive. Below is the list of all Pali canonical passages containing the term dhammakāya. 14 It is possible that the identification of dhammakāya with dhamma in the sense of teaching, which has become a common practice in many previous works, was influenced by different factors. A possibility is some of Buddhaghosa’s writings viewed through the researchers’ preferred style of interpretation. For example of this case, see Dutt, op. cit., p.138-142. Reed and Xing seem to follow Dutt’s lead. Reed, op. cit., p. 29; Xing, op. cit., pp.35-36. But for some scholars, the idea seems to have been influenced partly by the authors’ aversion of Mahāyāna conception of dhammakāya as transcend ent body, or more specifically of kēya as body. For example, see the expression in Harrison, op. cit., pp. 74-76. Cf. Chanida Jantrasrisalai, “Early Buddhist dhammakāya: Its Philosophical and Soteriological Significance” (University of Sydney, 2009), pp. 18-19.