Re: More on vibhava-tanha

Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,

Thanks for referencing the Thai version. In fact this is one of the translation possibilities that has been discussed and I certainly think it has validity, especially in the light of similar dhamma expressed in the Mūlapariyāya sutta ("The Tathāgata... directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive [himself as] earth, he does not conceive [himself] in earth, he does not conceive [himself apart] from earth, he does not conceive earth to be 'mine,' he does not delight in earth..." in Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi, 89) and the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna sutta ("... he abides contemplating body as body... etc."). Ven. Bodhi has vigorously argued that vibhūta means "disappeared" in this context and Lance Cousins has argued for a translation of "transcended" on the basis of the Niddesa commentary (to a passage in the Sn). I have also suggested that perhaps a plurality of meanings is possible in the passage, each suggesting
  a different aspect of the meditation practice. I believe this tension as to what happens in the upper levels of meditation has been present since the earliest time in Buddhism (and probably beforehand, as the Buddha was trained in meditation practices by Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta). The eighth jhāna is the base of neither-perception-nor-nonperception and the ninth is the cessation of cessation of perception and feeling. These states may in fact be impossible to describe in words and therefore a polysemous word like vibhūta may be appropriate,

Metta,

Bryan




________________________________
  From: Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <yuttadhammo@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:37:28 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] More on vibhava-tanha


 
Dear Friends,

I don't have much to add to this discussion myself except to say that
this seems like a case where the commentary sees things far more
practically than I would have - whereas I would think to assume the
state of not meditating on "any of the above" would simply mean the
disappearance of all of the above, the commentary seems to be trying to
point out that it is through seeing "all of the above" as impermanent,
etc., that one comes to let them go as meditation objects.

What I did want to add, however, is the Thai translation, which may be a
bit of a compromise between the two readings:

"The perception in regards to earth being earth as an object (ārammaṇa)
is something clear and distinct (jem jaeng) to him."

To me this allows the implication that because earth has been clearly
understood it has therefore been discarded as an object.

I haven't been following the conversation too closely, so I apologize if
I am repeating what others have already said.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo



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