Re: More on vibhava-tanha

Dear Venerable Bodhi and participants,


> **
>
>
> 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.
>

There can be no doubt about this, Bhante, and I don't think that anyone
involved in this discussion would disagree with this as our most basic
shared methodology.


> 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.
>
Personally, I had always assumed so, too, and had never thought otherwise
or even thought to question that deeply established reading. Strangely,
though, this discussion, some light *seems* to have been shed upon a
possible alternative reading for the presene of *vibhava-taṇhā* in the
second noble truth. I doubt that the participants in this discussion have
any wrong sense of 'personal investment' in either possibility: I think we
all just genuinely want to engage as deeply as we can with the heart and
depths of the Dhamma, to clarify it and illuminate it in our minds.

In this case, for instance, a recognition has struck me quite deeply that
the received reading of *vibhava-tanha* is in fact an *interpretation*.  It
appears to be a well-reasoned interpretation that links statements and
definitions found in other suttas to a reading of the word *vibhava* in the
compound *vibhava-taṇhā* which is understandably overdetermined by what
appears to be the predominantly or perhaps even exclusively 'negative'
sense of this term and its cognates.

But it does seem possible and even plausible that *vibhava* in *
vibhava-taṇhā* might have been originally intended a 'positive' sense.
There may be several cogent reasons to support such an alternative reading
of the term in this singular context. Moreover, if one admits that
possibility as a plausible hypothesis, then the received interpretation of *
vibhava-taṇhā*, which connects it with descriptions of ucchedavāda and with
the kind of people described in It 49 (*bhaveneva kho paneke aṭṭīyamānā
harāyamānā jigucchamānā vibhavaṃ **abhinandanti*) no longer seems so
obvious and so unquestionable. Even the link between the occurrence of the
verb *abhinandanti* in the latter passage, which echoes * tatratatrā**
bhinandinī* in the second noble truth, is weakened.


>
> 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.
>

Again, no one would question this, and I would assume that all those
involved in this discussion do make use of this aspect of the Abhidhamma,
to a lesser or greater extent, given its extreme systematicity and
conciseness.


>
> 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.
>

Methodologically, the difficulty with adducing these definitions as
evidence is that they are *post factum*.  Even in the canonical accounts of
the First and Second Councils, as you would of course know well, there is
no mention of the 'Abhidhamma', as such.  What these passages demonstrate
is that the interpretation that connected *ucchedadiṭṭhi* with *vibhavataṇhā
* was clearly in place by the time of the writing of the Vibhaṅga.  The
same must be said of the Chinese translations of alternative Abhidharma
texts that you also cite.  (Your observations on the role of
*bhava-taṇhā*I will have to respond to on another occasion.)

I do have faith that if this inquiry and discussion continues with
sincerity, with an open-minded and impersonal concentration on all the
details that can be adduced, the journey and the outcome, whether it
inclines one way or the other with respect to the best possible sense for *
vibhavataṇhā*, or remains inconclusive, will nevertheless be of deep value
for some, perhaps even all, of us.

With metta,
Khristos


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