Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu possessed of six things is unable to gain strength in composure. Which six?
Here, a bhikkhu is not good at attainment of composure, not good at steadying of composure, not good at rousing of composure, one who acts disrespectfully, one who acts impersistently, and one who acts inappropriately.
A bhikkhu possessed of these six things is unable to gain strength in composure.
Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu possessed of six things is able to gain strength in composure. Which six?
Here, a bhikkhu is good at attainment of composure, good at steadying of composure, good at rousing of composure, one who acts respectfully, one who acts persistently, and one who acts appropriately.
A bhikkhu possessed of these six things is able to gain strength in composure.
Hmm well, thanks to your prod I did look up the sutta and I must say “vuṭṭhāna” has an interesting connotation: “moving beyond” So, perhaps, in the sense of not getting attached to meditation experiences? Or perhaps skilled at making the transition from samatha to vipassanā? Certainly does shake loose the phrase from its commentarial gloss…
I see. In any case, it wouldn’t make sense to say “rehabilitation of samādhi” or “going beyond of samādhi”. IMO, “rehabilitation” is more than a translation for vuṭṭhāna. It’s an interpretation. I try hard to avoid doing this in my translations.
This is the genitive functioning in an ablative-like way.
The abl.-like gen . (SS §125) occurs with certain verbs where some notion of separation or distance or some such ablatival function seems to be implied. We have already referred to the gen. used with local adverbs such as dakkhiṇato , uttarena and sammukhā denoting the point from which distance or direction is reckoned (§130) and the gen. of origin employed instead of the corresponding abl. with the verb pahoti (§145). As Speyer points out (SS §125) the gen. is admissible in such instances when there is at the same time room for the conception of belonging to (being part of) and that of proceeding from.
It really isn’t. There are multiple passages in the suttas that show what this means, as well as the narrative context of the sutta in question, as well as the unified testimony of the commentarial tradition, as well as the unified testimony of modern translators. It is not a difficult or controversial passage.