Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Dear Khristos,

I am always careful about setting aside the interpretation of the commentators unless I have clear (vibhūta!) evidence as to where they have gone astray. After all, they are much closer to these writings than we are in time, and perhaps  better in their knowledge of the language. In this case (AN 11.9) the evidence to me isn't clear (avibhūta!), especially given the doctrine in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta and the Mūlapariyāyasutta, referred to previously, and the fact that we find usages of vi+bhū in the Sutta Nipāta with the earlier meaning.  It seems to me that it could mean either, "the perception of the earth in relation to earth has disappeared," or "the perception of earth in relation to earth is clear (distinct, understood, known)," in the sense that the meditator no longer meditates in dependence on or in reaction to what is seen, sensed, cognized, etc., but simply sees things yathābhūtaṃ, as they really are, without
  superimpositions of "me" or "mine", etc.

Mettā,

Bryan





________________________________
  From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 7:56:59 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhuta in AN 11.10


 
Dear Chanida,

thank you very much for drawing our attention to this passage from
Mahāniddesa, and for presenting it in such lucid detail.  Personally, I
really enjoyed it: it's quite an eloquent piece of interpretation
(argumentation).

With all due respect, though, I do have one query about the relevance of
this passage to the evidence previously provided that:

(1) the first four Nikāyas of the Suttanta Piṭaka (the core collection of
'suttas proper') contain quite unambiguous usages of forms derived from vi
+ bhū which have the 'negative' denotation under discussion.  It is true
that, within these four Nikāyas, the only occurence of the form vibhūta is
in AN 11.9.  But the possibility and probability of a sense along the lines
of, e.g., 'ceased to be' has been prepared for by the clear evidence of
similar 'negative' denotations for other derivatives of vi-bhū in the
suttas. Moreover, as we have seen, and as you yourself have noted, the
context provided by closely parallel suttas for vibhūta in AN 11.9 strongly
suggests that this meaning is indeed not only the most probable, but also
the most semantically satisfying.  (But this does raise some very important
philosophical questions: cf. remarks farther on.)

So, in general, the 'negative' sense of vi-bhū is in effect *already there*,
long before the Mahāniddesa; and so it seems to me that it should hardly
have required great effort of explanation or justification to connect
'vibhūta' with certain (apparenly rather Buddhist) 'negative' senses of
vi-bhū.  But I don't think that's what the author of the Mahāniddesa is
actually doing, here.  I think that perhaps he's doing something else with
his interpretation/argument: e.g., attempting to integrate a certain
concept of 'vibhūta' into early Buddhist doctrine in a theoretically
consistent and elegant way (and his attempt at this seems to me quite
eloquent, as I've already remarked; and even quite phenomenological, in a
certain sense (so a second thanks also  for this)).  He's trying to unpack
and theorise the stages of the process that purportedly lead to the
result *rūpe
vibhūte na phusanti phassā.  *Because I think the real problem here is the
experiential and philosophical (I would just say, phenomenological) sense
of the formulation *rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā*.  The question is, how
does the meditator cause the cessation of sensory contact (*phassa*)
without actually having either to destroy material form or destroy his or
her own sense-organs or consciousness.  How can it be done, purely in and
through an inner transformation of the mind itself?  That's the most
important and most interesting question.  Whether the author's account is
valid and convincing is another point, deserving a different discussion.

(2) On the historical question, as pointed out, the Niddesa is already too
late to have a role in the apparent change of meaning of vi-bhū from the
'positive' Vedic sense to include also a certain 'negative' sense in the
Buddhist suttas, in the kinds of derivations and contexts previously
indicated.  Von Hinüber, *A Handbook of Pāli Literature*, §118, reports
that while S. Levi argued for a date for Nidd in the 2nd century CE, K. R.
Norman argued for a much earlier date, at the time of Aśoka; but Norman's
view has been disputed, and von Hinüber says that "the question needs
reexamination".  He concludes: "It is, however, certain that the Nidd does
not belong to the old canonical texts and that also a date after Aśoka does
not seem unlikely."

(3) In closing, one wonders whether perhaps it is not really so surprising
or mysterious, after all, that 'positive' Vedic denotations and
connotations that had accrued around the sense of vi-bhū underwent, in
certain contexts, a 'negative' shift in Buddhist doctrine.  After all, is
this not a fairly familiar and well-attested phenomenon in religious and
philosophical thought and language, when a paradigm that has grown up and
out of a preceding one makes a radical (whether it be seen as
'revolutionary' or 'reactionary') 'break', but also re-assimilation, of its
'parent paradigm'?  But that's just a thought that leads off to another
field and topic.

Thanks, Chanida, for your contribution and discussion!

With metta,
Khristos

On 15 October 2012 18:47, Chanida Jantrasrisalai <jchanida@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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]
>
>
>

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




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