Dear Piya,
I appreciate your question.
I quoted from the Co. to the Metta sutta, but the same is also used
in the Udana Co. re Bahiyasutta.

I quote now from Robert's forum who incorporated a letter from Sarah
(moderator of dhammastudygroup):

<Peter Masefield�s translation of the Udana (Ud) and Udana commentary
(Ud-a)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khudd...ana/ud1-10.html
Ud-a continues:

QUOTE
�It is, moreover, wrong on the part of those who seek reference to an
intermediate becoming (antaraabhava.m) by seizing upon the phrase
ubhayamantarena [in both]. For the existence of an intermediate
becoming is altogether rejected in the Abhidhamma. ....Furthermore,
those who still say that there is an intermediate becoming by seizing
unmethodically upon the meaning of such sutta-passages as �An
antaraaparinibbaayin� (eg Aiv70ff) and �Those who are become or those
seeking becoming�(Khp8) are to be rebuffed with �there is no (such
thing)�, since the meaning of the former sutta passage is that he is
an antaraaparinibbaayin since he attains parinibbaana
(parinibbaayati) by way of remainderles defilement-parinibbana
through attaining the topmost path midway (antaraa)[in lifespan]....,
whilst the meaning of the latter (sutta-passage) is that those who,
in the former word, are spoken of as �those who are
become� (bhuutaa), are those in whom the asavas have been destroyed,
being those who are merely become, (but) who will not become (again,
(whereas the latter,) being the antithesis thereof, (and spoken of
as) �those seeking becoming� (sambhavesino) since it is becoming
(sambhava.m) that they seek (esenti), are sekhas and puthujjanas on
account of the fetters giving rise to becoming not having been
abandoned....�
�For when there is a straightforward meaning that follows the
(canonical) Pali, what business is there in postulating an
intermediate becoming of unspecified capacity?�>
End quote.
---------
So, the point is, that we at this moment cannot give up clinging to
life, we still want to be reborn. The arahat is not so, he has become
but is not seeking to be born again. Thus in the quoted passage the
difference between the non-arahat and arahat is shown.
Just in this context the term bhuuta is used in this way.
Nina.

Op 24-aug-2006, om 11:53 heeft Piya Tan het volgende geschreven:

> That "bhuuta" refers to arhats is most interesting: do you
> references for this?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]