Dear Ole,

thanks for the information. I agree that "(simply) covered with
kilesas" does not make much Buddhist philosophical sense. Referencing
the commentary (again), I think it is more appropriate in today's
language to say "tainted with kilesas/defilements". :-)

However, I do agree that 'bahu' can refer to anything because of the
liberal construct. I think your interpretation, though unconventional,
is another alternative way of understanding the verse.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

There is not a single passage in the canon in which guhaa is used
metaphorically of the body. The few occurrences are invariably to
caves. In addition, abhi(c)channo can only mean covered, and it is
constructed with instr. of the thing something/someone is covered
with. However, what does covered with many refer to? The idea of
someone covered with all the kilesas seems to me very unlikely. It
probably refers to his clothing and jewelry or the like, all of them
objects of sensuous desire (kaamaa) that should be transcended.