More on vibhava-tanha

Dear All Participants in this Discussion,



It seems to me that relying on postulates of reasoning (e.g., that the three kinds of craving constitute a “climactic triad”) is not always a dependable method for determining the meaning of a Pali term as used in the suttas. The most reliable method is to draw upon other suttas which, in closely corresponding contexts, illuminate the meaning of the term. The suttas I cited in my previous email (Itivuttaka 49, Digha Nikaya no. 1, Majjhima Nikaya no. 102) seem to make the meaning of vibhava-tanha as desire for personal annihilation quite clear.



If there is any doubt remaining, I find the next most reliable method is to turn to the early masters of the Buddhist tradition. Perhaps it would not be an outlandish assumption to believe that they are more reliable guides to the meaning of terms used in the texts they inherited from the Buddha than the Vedas, Braahmanas, and Upanishads.



For this purpose, passages from the Abhidharma can be helpful. While we might put in brackets the intricate detailed Abhidharma systems, we find in the canonical Abhidharma texts whose purpose is simply to define important terms used in the suttas. I just collected passages from Abhidharma texts on the meaning of vibhava-tanha. One is from the Pali Vibhanga, in which chapter 17 gives formal definitions of a large number of kilesas mentioned in the Nikayas. Another is the Sangitipariyaya, a Sarvastivada Abhidharma work that defines the terms used in the Sangitisutra (Sarvastivada version). And still a third is the Sariputra Abhidharma Shastra, considered likely to be the Abhidharma treatise of the Dharmaguptakas, another Vibhajyavada school closely connected with the Pali school. I will paste in their definitions below.



But first one comment on the idea that the three tanhas forms a sequence. It seems to me that of the three, the most fundamental is bhava-tanha. That is seen from the fact that bhava-tanha is occasionally mentioned as the type of tanha most responsible for maintaining the continuity of samsara (see for example Anguttara Tens, sutta 61 or 62); other suttas speak about the need to obliterate bhava-tanha in order to gain liberation. Note that bhava (as bhavaraaga) is included among the aasavas, yogas, and oghas, and bhavaraaga among the anusayas. Vibhava-tanha may be more subtle and harder to comprehend, but bhava-tanha seems to be more primordial.



Here are the selected passages from the three Abhidharma texts. I don’t translate the Pali, since I assume everyone in this panel can understand it.



From Pāli Vibhaṅga, chapter 17. Khuddakavatthuvibhaṅgo; Part 3: Tikaniddesa

(8) Tisso taṇhā

916. Tattha katamā tisso taṇhā? Kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

Tattha katamā bhavataṇhā? Bhavadiṭṭhisahagato rāgo sārāgo cittassa sārāgo – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘bhavataṇhā’’.

Tattha katamā vibhavataṇhā? Ucchedadiṭṭhisahagato rāgo sārāgo cittassa sārāgo – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘vibhavataṇhā’’. Avasesā taṇhā kāmataṇhā.

Tattha katamā kāmataṇhā? Kāmadhātupaṭisaṃyutto rāgo sārāgo cittassa sārāgo – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘kāmataṇhā’’.

( ) [(tattha katamā bhavataṇhā)] Rūpadhātuarūpadhātupaṭisaṃyutto rāgo sārāgo cittassa sārāgo – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘bhavataṇhā’’.

( ) [(tattha katamā vibhavataṇhā) (?)] Ucchedadiṭṭhisahagato rāgo sārāgo cittassa sārāgo – ayaṃ vuccati ‘‘vibhavataṇhā’’. Imā tisso taṇhā.



From the Sarvāstivāda Abhdharma, (T XXVI no. 1536)

Saṅgītiparyāya, fascicle 4: Triplets, section 4.2

阿毘達磨集異門足論卷第四; 三法品第四之二

[0382c18] 復有三愛。一欲愛。二有愛。三無有愛。欲愛云何。答於諸欲中諸貪等貪。執藏防護耽著愛染。是謂欲愛。有愛云何。答色無色界諸貪等貪。執藏防護耽著愛染。是謂有愛。無有愛云何。答欣無有者。於無有中諸貪等貪。執藏防護耽著愛染。是謂無有愛。此復如何。如有一類怖畏所逼。怖畏所惱。憂苦所逼。憂苦所惱。苦受觸故。作是念言。云何當令我身死後斷壞無有。永[7]絕眾病豈不樂哉。彼欣無有。於無有中諸貪等貪。執藏防護耽著愛染。是謂無有愛。

Another three cravings: (1) sensual craving; (2) craving for existence; (3) craving for nonexistence. (1) What is sensual craving? The lust for sensual pleasures; the intense lust, seizing, treasuring, upholding, indulgence, attachment, defilement of craving [for sensual pleasures]: this is called sensual craving. (2) What is craving for existence? The lust connected with the form and formless realms; the intense lust, seizing, treasuring, upholding, indulgence, attachment, defilement of craving [connected with the form and formless realms]: this is called craving for existence. (3) What is craving for nonexistence? In the case of one who delights in nonexistence, the lust in regard to nonexistence (於無有中諸貪); the intense lust, seizing, treasuring, upholding, indulgence, attachment, defilement of craving [in regard to nonexistence]: this is called craving for nonexistence.

And what is this? For instance, there is one oppressed by fear, distressed by fear, one oppressed by misery and suffering, distressed by misery and suffering, because of contact with painful feeling, he thinks and asserts: “Suppose that after death I [or ‘the self’] will be annihilated, destroyed, and nonexistent. Then the whole mass of illness would be terminated forever. Wouldn’t that be pleasant!” He is one who delights in nonexistence. [His] lust in regard to nonexistence; the intense lust, seizing, treasuring, upholding, indulgence, attachment, defilement of craving [in regard to nonexistence]: this is called craving for nonexistence.



From the *Śāriputra Abhidharma  Śāstra (T XXVIII no. 1548)

Fascicle 4: Analysis of the Four Noble Truths, section 4

舍利弗阿毘曇論 -- 卷第四; 問分四聖諦品第四



(0553a29)云
何欲愛。欲界法中欲染重欲染憐不逆樂樂欲
可重可究竟可不足不滿著重著津漏親近愛
[＊]支網能生苦根希望渴宅耽忍[＊]能廣創愛。是
名欲愛。云何有愛。色界無色界法中欲染。乃
至[5]廣創愛。是名有愛。云何非有愛。若有人強
言有我若[6]杖怖苦病等[7]逼便希望我斷壞非
有。彼法中欲染乃至廣創愛。是名非有愛。

What is sensual craving? Defiled desire connected with the dharmas of the sensual realm, intense defiled desire, love for them ... [various synonyms for desire] ... the wound of craving: this is called sensual craving. What is craving for existence? Defiled desire connected with the dharmas of the form and formless realms, and so forth as far as the wound of craving: this is called craving for existence. What is craving for nonexistence (非有愛)? There is a person who strongly asserts that there is a self. Afraid of the rod (?unclear), oppressed by suffering, illness, and so forth, he hopes that the self will be annihilated, destroyed, and become nonexistent: defiled desire connected with that dharma, and so forth as far as the wound of craving: this is called craving for nonexistence.



With metta,

Bhikkhu Bodhi



From: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Levman
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:05 PM
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhūta in AN 11.10



  

Dear Khristos and Lennart,

Thanks for the clarification. I too see it as a "climactic triad" which is why vibhava as non-existence doesn't make sense to me; to me craving for pleasure (kāmataṇhā) causes craving for existence (bhavataṇhā) so the pleasure can be experienced, and existence brings about craving for more and more pleasure- i. e.,  accumulation of wealth, possessions, power, ego, etc., (vibhavataṇhā) which is indeed a climactic triad. vibhāva has all these meanings and more per MW ("power, might, greatness, exalted position, rank, dignity, majesty, dominion, wealth, money, property, fortune"). It is also in keeping with the standard "waxing syllable rule" we find in Buddhist teachings,  whereby successive compounds increase in syllable number (in this case 4+ 4+ 5). It is also in keeping with what we see about humanity. How many people crave for non-existence? Even a 90 year old clings to life.

Khristos, I don't think I misunderstood you. I would say however, that there are definitely examples in the Tipiṭaka of vibhava with a positive meaning. I referenced a few in the Sutta  Nipāta in one of my previous emails, where dukkhā vibhavanti, means to "arise" and has nothing to do with destruction.

Part of the problem here I think is our propensity to view words digitally - as either this or that (positive or negative). This is in itself a form of extremism. There are many examples in Tipiṭaka of polysemy where the words can mean several things, and we know that the Buddha believed that language was simple an agreement amongst people (and not something immortal, changeless and coterminous with Brahma) and therefore changeable and flexible according to context. There are many instances were a word can mean more than one thing and quite possible did. Norman talks about this in his Philological Approach to Buddhism and ambiguities in the canon (whether deliberate or accidental, there are hundreds of them, because of phonological change over time) are the subject of my thesis. So I'm not convinced that vibhava may not also have this same degree of polysemy or malleability in meaning. Pāli did not exist in a vacuum - Vedic was one of its parents, and
it did not just throw out its heritage.

For example the compound sabbatopabhaṃ as a descriptive of consciousness, from DN 1, 223, has caused a lot of speculation as to its meaning since Buddhaghoṣa's time.

viññāṇaṃ
anidassanaṃ, anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ.
ettha āpo ca pathavī, tejo vāyo na gādhati,
ettha dīghañca rassañca, aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ?
ettha nāmañca rūpañca, asesaṃ uparujjhati,,
ettha nāmañ nirodhena etth’ etaṃ uparujjhatī ti.
A close study of all the variant readings and corresponding passages in other Middle Indic dialects (and Tibetan and Chinese) will show that the earliest transmission of the compound was as - pahaṃ or pahu (or indeed both - see Norman reference below). This shows that the word's meaning could be "a pathway to
everywhere" (patha)/ "shining everywhere"
(prabhā)/ "extending everywhere" (pṛthu)/ "everywhere the lord" (prabhu). Buddhaghoṣa took it as synonmous with the first and second, the Tibetans with "lord" and another Middle Indic witness with "extending". A modern translator, Ñāṇamoli took it as apabhaṃ ("non-arising") which is yet another possiblity (the negativizing a- having elided because of sandhi).

So the above gāthā could be translated as

Where consciousness
is non-manifesting, endless, a pathway to everywhere (patha)/shining
everywhere (prabhā)/extending
everywhere (pṛthu)/everywhere the
lord (prabhu), here water, earth,
fire and wind find no footing, here long and short, fine and coarse, pure and
impure, here name and form cease entirely; with the cessation of consciousness
all this ceases.”


To anyone who is interested I can provide all the background data; my point is simply that a word can have several different meanings even within the same context, polyvocal in multiple layers. I am not saying that  vibhava in the portion in question (or vibhūta in the AN) has a dual meaning; I am just saying that we should keep our mind open as to the possibility of dual or multiple meanings, either in the same sentence (paranomasia) or intra-suttas (amongst two or more different suttas).

I for one am very interested in your findings Khristos and I cannot see how it would offend anyone. Deepening our understanding of the Buddhadhamma can only be positive,

Metta,

Bryan

K. R.
Norman, "An epithet of Nibbāna",  Śramaṇa Vidyā: Studies in Buddhism (Prof. Jagannath Upadhyaya Commemoration
Volume) (Sarnath, 1987), 23-31. Also available in Collected Papers 3 (Oxford: Pali Text Society), 183-189
________________________________

________________________________
From: Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@... <mailto:nizamisk%40gmail.com> >
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:24:24 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhūta in AN 11.10


  
Dear Bryan, and all,

I'm afraid that I did not express myself clearly enough in my previous post
(and I think that this lack of clarity may have led both you and Ven. Bodhi
to misinterpret the argument I tried to present there).

What I *actually *intended was that the positive reading for *vibhava *felt
'right' to me ONLY in the case of the triadic definition of *taṇhā *in
terms of *kāmataṇhā*, *bhavataṇhā*, *vibhavataṇhā*.

I did NOT reverse my position on the negative meaning of
*vi-bhū*derivatives in the suttas in most (perhaps even all?) other
instances.

In other words, I did NOT intend to endorse that part of Neumann's thesis
(if that is what he intended) that *vibhava *only has a negative sense if
it occurs in a direct oppositional pair with *bhava*.

After all, I myself had already presented to you examples from the suttas
in which it is (I think unambiguously) the case that *vi-bhū* derivatives,
including the term *vibhava *itself, standing alone, clearly must have a
negative sense.

To make things clear, let me say that I am only prepared to hypothesise a
MODIFIED version of Neumann's thesis: namely, that ONLY in the triadic
definition of the second noble truth, *kāmataṇhā*, *bhavataṇhā*, *vibhavataṇhā,
*does *vibhava *have its positive sense. I will call this the Modified
Neumann Hypothesis (MNH).

This would entail, however, that *both *the positive *and *negative senses
occur in the suttas, but ONLY in this particular distribution!

I wonder what you would make of this implication of the MNH?

I apologise for not making my intended meaning 'crystal clear'. But if you
were to read my previous argument again with this clarification in mind,
I'm sure it would read very differently to you.

Moreover, given this clarification of my perspective, I don't need to
respond to Ven. Bodhi's arguments supporting the negative reading of *vibhava
*and other *vi-bhū *derivations in contexts OTHER than the singular case of
*vibhavataṇhā*.

But I do continue to be deeply interested in testing the MNH, and I have
been making as close and careful an inquiry as I can, into the Suttanta
Piṭaka texts with the intention of testing this hypothesis.

So far, the results are certainly interesting. I cannot say that I have
yet found a clearly decisive, conclusive piece of evidence to decide in
favour of *either *the MNH *or *the received reading (i.e., of *vibhavataṇhā
*as 'craving for non-existence'). Rather, I have found that it is possible
to argue fairly cogently for either interpretation, relying on textual
evidence plus very careful and parsimonious interpretation of that evidence.

Moreover, at this point, I actually feel that the argument in favour of the
MNH is slightly stronger than that in favour of the received reading. That
is, I have found that quite strong counter-arguments can be made in favour
of the MNH, against those that Ven. Bodhi has presented in favour of the
received reading.

I would like to post the results of the inquiry, once suitably fomulated,
so that others with different perspectives and knowledge-bases could
further test the arguments for and against the hypothesis; but only if
doing so does not offend anyone.

With metta,
Khristos

On 19 October 2012 01:17, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@... <mailto:bryan.levman%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Dear Khristos, Lennart, Ven. Bodhi and all,
>
> I too was impressed with Neumann's interpretation of vibhavataṇhā as
> craving for well-being; it did have a certain "feeling of rightness" about
> it, as Khristos said, as for years I have wondered about the third craving
> - also translated as for "non-existence" - which does not seem very
> prevalent in mankind, while craving for well-being/wealth/riches, etc., is
> omnipresent. Even more importantly, this is the normal Vedic and Sanskrit
> usage of the word.
>
> Ven. Bodhi's argument is however, quite convincing, and my own check for
> usages of vibhavatanhā in Newmann's sense, did not yield any results.
> Certainly there are lots of usages of the verb vi + bhū plus derivatives
> in the positive sense, in the earliest Pāli writings, but nothing with the
> noun vibhava in the Neumann sense that I can find. In fact, in the Sabhiya
> sutta of the Sutta nipāta, which according to Norman is one of the earliest
> suttas - predating the Second Council (383 BC), we find
>
> vibhavañca bhavañca vippahāya,
> vusitavā khīṇapunabbhavo sa bhikkhu.
>
> which Norman translates as "...having abandoned both non-existence and
> existence, has lived his life, whose renewed existence is destroyed, he is
> a 'bhikkhu'."
>
> I suppose it could be translated in Neumann's sense, ".. having abandoned
> wealth (power, might, fortune, property, etc.) and existence..." but that
> does not intuitively strike me as correct.
>
> If anyone finds a nominal usage of vibhava in the Newmann sense, please
> share it with the group,
>
> Metta,
>
> Bryan
>
> __,_._,
>

[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]