Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Respected Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi

Dear Bryan and friends,



Thank you so much for your detailed clarification and interesting
discussion. I appreciate your time and effort in bringing up valuable
points as regards methodology for translation and study of MIA languages,
apart from the particular point in my question.



To me, Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi's clarification is clear enough and
reasonable for the choice of translation chosen for vibhūtā in the cited
passage, to refer to the state of cessation. I agree that both philological
and philosophical or contextual aspects are needed in order to decide on a
probable translation of the text. I am thankful to you all for pointing
this out clearly.



As for Bryan's observation/suspect on the changing meanings of vibhūta,
after following your suggestions, I came across an interesting reference
which seems relevant. It is Mahāniddesa’s comment on the phrase ‘Rūpe
vibhūte na phusanti phassa.’ Here the text describes that form becomes vibhūta
(vibhūta here is used in a variety of meanings) by means of four reasons or
in four manners. The four reasons/manners are explained as successive
stages of vibhūta.



The passage is in Mahāniddesa Ee 2.277-8, slightly preceding the one cited
by Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi:



Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā ti. Rūpe ti cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañ
ca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ.

For explanation on the phrase “When form becomes 'vibhūta,' contacts do not
contact”- ‘form’ refers to four primary elements and secondary matters
dependent on the four primary elements.



Rūpe vibhūteti catūhi kāraṇehi/ākārehi rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti, ñātavibhūtena
tīraṇavibhūtena pahānavibhūtena

samatikkamavibhūtena.

Form becomes 'vibhūta' by means of four reasons (or in four manners), i.e.,
by means of ñātavibhūta tīraṇavibhūta pahānavibhūta and samatikkamavibhūta.



Kathaṃ ñātavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti? Rūpaṃ jānāti: yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ,
sabbaṃ rūpaṃ, cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañ ca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ ti
jānāti passati; evaṃ ñātavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti.

How does form become clear/evident (vibhūta) by means of ñātavibhūta? He
(meditator) knows form. That is to say, he knows, he sees any form, all
form, four primary elements and matters dependent on the four primary
elements. In this way, form becomes clear/evident (vibhūta) by means of
knowing.



Kathaṃ tīraṇavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti? Evaṃ ñātaṃ katvā rūpaṃ tīreti
aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato
ītito upaddavato bhayato upasaggato calato pabhaṅgato addhuvato atāṇato
aleṇato asaraṇato rittato tucchato suññato anattato ādīnavato
vipariṇāmadhammato asārakato aghamūlato vadhakato vibhavato sāsavato
saṃkhatato mārāmisato jātidhammato jarādhammato byādhidhammato
maraṇadhammato sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsadhammato
saṃkilesikadhammato samudayato atthaṅgamato assādato ādīnavato nissaraṇato
tīreti; evaṃ tīraṇavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti.

How does form becomes vibhūta by means of tīraṇavibhūta? Having made it
known to him in such a way, he determines form by means of impermanence,
displeasure, illness, a boil, a dart, pain, disease, enemies, etc. In this
way, form becomes evident/clear (vibhūta) by means of determination.



Kathaṃ pahānabhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti?  Evaṃ tīretvā rūpe chandarāgaṃ
pajahati vinodeti byantīkaroti

anabhāvaṃ gameti. Vuttaṃ h' etaṃ Bhagavatā: *Yo rūpe bhikkhave chandarāgo
taṃ pajahatha; evan taṃ pahīnaṃ bhavissati ucchinnamūlaṃ tālāvatthukataṃ
anabhāvaṃ gataṃ āyatiṃ anuppādadhammaṃ; evaṃ pahānavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ
hoti.

How does form becomes vibhūta by means of pahānabhūta? Having determines it
in this way, he abandons, relieves, abolishes desire and lust in form;
causes it to perish. This is indeed as the Blessed one said: “Monks,
abandon desire and lust in form. That (those?) desire and lust abandoned in
this way would be cut-rooted, like a groundless uprooted palm, arrive at
ultimate cessation, having no further existence.” In this way, form becomes
ignored (vibhūta) by means of abandonment.



Kathaṃ samatikkamavibhūtena rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti? Catasso arūpasamāpattiyo
paṭiladdhassa rūpā vibhūtā

honti vibhāvitā atikkantā samatikkantā vītavattā; evaṃ samatikkamavibhūtena
rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti.

How does form become vibhūta by means of samatikkamavibhūta? Forms become
vibhūta (ignored), vibhāvitā (variant form of vibhūta – Cf. Mr Cousins),
overcome, surmounted, transcended for him who has obtained the four
formless attainments. In this way, form becomes transcended (vibhūta) by
means of surpassing.



Imehi catūhi kāraṇehi/ākārehi rūpaṃ vibhūtaṃ hoti.

Form becomes vibhūta (clear/evident/ignored/transcended) by means of these
four reasons (or in four manners).



Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā ti rūpe vibhūte vibhāvite atikkante
samatikkante vītivatte, pañca phassā na

phusanti, cakkhusamphasso sotasamphasso ghānasamphasso jivhāsamphasso
kāyasamphasso ti, rūpe vibhūte

na phusanti phassā.

[Hence, an explanation of the phrase] ‘when form is transcended, contacts
do not contact’ [is that] when form is ignored, overcome, surmounted,
transcended, the five contacts do not contact – namely, eye-contact,
ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact - when form is
transcended, contacts do not contact.”



By the long explanation of the phrase ‘Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā,’
the Mahāniddesa’s author has introduces a range of meanings for vibhūta,
from ‘clear/evident’ to ‘transcended.’ It is plausible that from this point
the meaning of the term has developed to ‘disappeared’ which, I believe,
should have begun from the disappearance of ‘perception’ rather than that
of ‘form’ *per se*. This is as Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi has translated, “the
perception of earth has disappeared in regard to earth.”



Exploring through the usages of vibhūta, it seems to me that the meaning of
the term as ‘clear/evident’ was well-known in a period shortly after that
of the Nikāyas, at least at the time of Mahāniddesa’s author. His use of
vibhūta in this sense appears so ample (see ‘vibhūtaṃ katvā’ throughout)
and primary that he had to build up so long an explanation in order to make
a departure (from the meaning generally understood among people?) to the
purported meaning ‘transcended.’


Many articles on the changing meanings of the word dharma/dhamma from Vedic
to Buddhist periods, published in the Journal of Indian philosophy vol.32,
should be of interest in this regard.



Yours respectfully & mettā,

Chanida


On 14 October 2012 19:44, 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]