Re: vibhuta in AN 11.10

Dear Bryan,

you wrote:

>
> 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.
>
I don't disagree with you on this. Although I have to admit I find
Neumann's attitude amusingly congenial, and I would always give priority to
'intra-sutta' researches before 'extra-sutta' researches (referring in the
first instance to the commentaries and sub-commentaries), the practical
fact of the matter is that one can't do without 'extra-sutta' researches.
I tend to try to make use of the commentaries and sub-commentaries, even
though very often I find the language difficult, challenging, and
time-consuming (but hopefully good practice), especially as I have no
access to any translations of any commentaries (other than those which Ven.
Bodhi has included in his translations of four individual suttas).

But I think that in general there is some very clear evidence of where,
how, and why, in general principle, the commentaries differ (basically,
stand in a different paradigm) from the suttas.  Yet, even with
Buddhaghosa, sometimes his 'phenomenological common sense' gets the better
of his Abhidhamma reductionism, and he is sometimes led to say very
interesting things that stand out like sore thumbs.

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.
>
I hope that my recent post might offer at least a slight indication of my
own perspective on these questions. I think this issue is very, very deep,
and that it would take us a long time and lots of very careful work and
discussion to really get it 'vibhūta'.

With metta,
Khristos


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