Re: vibhūta in AN 11.10

Dear Chanida,

That indeed is how I see it, that vibhūta may have all these meanings in the context, "made clear," "pervaded" (in the sense of the collapse of subject and object), "transcended" and "vanished." The meaning(s) interpreted by the individual practitioner will depend on his/her own meditational experiences and insights...


Dear Nina,

Thank you for your post. I have read (I think in Collins Selfless Persons) that some branches of Theravadin Buddhism believe in a "between-lives period" (as the Tibetans do, calling it a bardo), where re-birth consciousness is delayed and not instantaneous. Are you familiar with this view?

Metta, Bryan



________________________________
  From: Chanida Jantrasrisalai <jchanida@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:34:35 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vibhūta in AN 11.10


 
Respected Venerable Bodhi and Venerable Yuttadhammo & Dear friends,

Many thanks for your active, interesting and illuminating discussion on the
terms vi+bhūa as well as for sharing of your thoughts,knowledge,references.
I wish I had more time to follow the thread closely.

Bryan wrote:

> **
> 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.
>

I fully agree with you that words and languages are indeed very much
flexible.

It just occurred to me when I took a note on 'vibhūta' in the AN 11.10,
that the 'seemingly disagreeing accounts' may indeed not really disagree.

Meditation by means of a thoroughbred's concentration may be explained as "monk
meditates having perception of all those objects or phenomena *vanished*/*
disappeared*" but at the same time "This refers to a state in which the
meditator’s mind has *passed beyond*/*transcended* the perception of all
those objects or phenomena and perceives only *Nibbāna."*
**
Now when it comes to perception of materiality, rather than the materiality
itself, perception vanished when it is transcended. (Nina may kindly
clarify whether my understanding is correct, in the view of Abhidhamma.)
Hence, it should be fine whether we explain it either as 'transcended' or
'disappeared.'

Looking at it in this way, it comes to my mind that we may not say that the
commentary to the AN 11.10 gives a wrong account. In fact it  provides only
the meaning of vibhūta in the beginning state that the perception of rūpa
was clear as per its true nature, (then comes evaluation, disenchantment
and transcendence and hence disappearance of perception). Mahāniddesa's
explanation of 'rūpe vibhūte' provides a clearest account, for it leads all
the way through.

Just a sharing of my thought. Please correct me if I am wrong.

With mettā,
Chanida

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




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