Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Dear Chanda,

you wrote:


> Also, it seems to me that the development of
> different meanings of a term does not necessarily go in a linear fashion.
> For example, when ṭīkācariyas re-interpreted the canonical texts, they
> could possibly have thought that they were providing the ideas closer to
> the original intent of the texts than did the aṭṭhakathācariyas, rather
> than intending to provide a 'newly developed ideas' or interpretations of
> the texts. In thus seems to me that the recurrence of old usages could
> occur at a later date.
>

I take it that by "the recurrence of old usages" you don't just mean
superficially that words that have changed meaning might later be used
again with their earlier meanings - but rather that words whose meanings
had some deeper intent which has been forgotten or lost might at some other
time have their deeper intent recovered or rediscovered and understood. I'm
sure that this is what you mean, here.

And so, yes, I very much agree with you that this possibility is always
present; and therefore that historical, geographical and temporal distance
are not the primary obstacles to 'understanding' that we need to surmount.

Thanks for initiating this interesting discussion.

With metta,
Khristos


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