Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Hi Bryan,

language is very interesting, isn't it!

Kh.


On 15 October 2012 13:14, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dear Khristos,
>
> Thanks for all these examples. It is strange how a word like vibhava (< vi
> + bhū) which in Vedic is only positive has come to pejorate  over time and
> have a negative meaning in Pāli. And since the word is part of the Four
> Noble Truths (with vibhava being one of the tanhās, craving for
> non-existence), its use in this negative form must be quite old (but still
> much younger than the Vedic usage).
>
> You are quite right that the prefix vi- has both these meanings in it,
> positive and negative; but how, why and when vi + bhū and cognate nouns and
> adjectives changed from meaning, "appear, manifest, pervade, make clear,"
> etc. to  "cease to exist, disappear" - almost the exact opposite - is a big
> mystery,
>
> Metta,
>
> Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:53:39 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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