Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Dear Bryan,

thank you for your valuable and interesting information and thoughts.  I,
too, have little time, but I've rather hastily put together the following
notes in response, as some further 'food for thought' on the question of
the possible meanings of *vibhūta *in different contexts.


Firstly, just a thought about the idiomatic ambivalence that naturally
seems to accrue to many words in all languages.  Even the word ‘clear’ in
English is a good example: compare, “It’s a clear day today”, or “The
meaning of this passage is quite clear”, as against “They cleared the land
of trees to make room for houses”, or “He cleared his mind of distracting
thoughts”.   There is a very clear [sorry] and obvious logical continuity
of sense between these two ambivalent ways of using the term ‘clear’.

Secondly, the prefix + root in question is of course *vi + bhū*. (So I’m
not quite sure of the relevance of your example *pa-bhavaṃ* (Skt. *pra + bhū
* > *prabhava*).) As you would know very well, the prefix *vi*- has  a
variety of quite different (even apparently contradictory) values (which no
doubt derive from its descent, as Monier-Williams and others say, from an
original *dvi*, “in two parts”). PED categorises the values of *vi* as (1)
expansion, spreading out; (2) disturbance, separation, mixing up; (3)
denoting the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference, opposite,
reverse; (4) intensifying the sense of the verb. This is paralleled in MW,
s.v. *vi*, “apart, asunder”, which, he says, is especially used as a prefix
to verbs and nouns to express ‘division’, ‘distinction’, ‘distribution’,
‘arrangement’, ‘order’, ‘opposition’, or ‘deliberation’.



Of course, the question is what the range of meanings the *vi +
bhū*demonstrates in use.
Scanning through the Sanskrit definitions of the various derivations in MW,
I could find only one obviusly ‘negative’ sense, for the noun *vibhava*,
which he ascribes to Buddhism: i.e., “destruction (of the world)”.  The
Pāli texts seem to admit far more ambivalence, however.



*vi-bhūta* is the past participle of *vi-bhavati* (which also appears in
the alternative form *vibhoti*, as in Sn 873 *kathaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ
*, which Ven Bodhi has already discussed, and which follows after Sn 872 *rūpe
vibhūte na phusanti phassā*, and leads up to the interesting verse Sn 874 *na
saññasaññī na visaññasaññī, nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī*).



There is surely an unambiguous example of the ‘negative’ sense of
*vi-bhū*in the future tense form
*vibhavissati* in SN 22.55 (at S III 56*)*:

* *

*rūpaṃ vibhavissatīti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti. vedanā vibhavissati... saññā
vibhavissati... saṅkhārā vibhavissanti... viññāṇaṃ vibhavissatīti
yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti.  *



"He does not understand as it really is, ‘Form will cease to be/will
disappear’... ‘feeling...’ ‘perception...’ ‘constitutions...’ He does not
understand as it really is ‘(Sensory) consciousness will cease to be/will
disappear’."



(Cf. also Ven. Bodhi’s translation, *The Connected Discourses*, p. 893, and
his note on this, p. 1063, n.76.  He translates *vibhavissati* here rather
strongly as ‘will be exterminated’.  As Bodhi notes, Spk II 275 glosses: *rūpaṃ
vibhavissatīti rūpaṃ bhijjissati*, i.e., as “form will be broken up,
destroyed”.  Spk-ṭ adds: *Vibhavissatīti vinassissati. Vibhavo hi
vināso.*  Clearly
interpreting as “will be destroyed (*vinassissati*)” and “destruction (*
vināso*)”.)



Turning to examples of the noun form *vibhava*:



DN 1 (at D I 34): *santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato
sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi*.



“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists
and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and
extermination of an existent being.”  (Ven. Bodhi’s translation, *The
All-Embracing Net of Views*, p. 79.)



AN 2.92 (at A I 83): *“dveme, bhikkhave, dhammā. katame dve? bhavadiṭṭhi ca
vibhavadiṭṭhi ca. ime kho, bhikkhave, dve dhammā”ti.*



Unless I’m mistaken, this should be translated along the lines of: “There
are these two teachings, monks. Which two? The view of becoming (or
being/existence) and the view of non-becoming (or non-being/non-existence).
These two teachings, monks.”



DN 33 (at D II 216): *tisso taṇhā – kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā,
vibhavataṇhā*.  Again,
my reading of this would be: “Three cravings: craving for sensual pleasure,
craving for being (existence), craving for non-being (non-existence,
extinction).”

With metta,
Khristos


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