Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

For me, in none of these passages does vibhūta mean 'destroyed' or
'disappeared'. The whole thing is about loosening the hold of
materiality (and the other aggregates) on the mind.

So Nidd is basically following the account of insight presented in the
Paṭisambhidāmagga. Matter is transcended in four ways. These are first
of all the three kinds of pariññā.

First of all, matter is known in general terms as the four elements and
the sense data dependent on that. Thereby one is less attached to the
particularities of the material world.

Secondly there is a shift to insight proper where one sees in terms of
the three signs and the like. With a further reduction in the hold of
materiality, etc. on the mind.

Thirdly we have the process that occurs in strong insight and the path
where attachment to materiality (and the other aggregates) is abandoned
either temporarily or permanently. Note that it is attachment that is
abandoned, not materiality.

In the fourth case, we are told that materiality is transcended for one
who has obtained the four formless attainments. It doesn't say 'in those
attainments'. So it means that 'form' has lost its hold on the mind for
such a person.

Lance Cousins

> 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