I’m torn between the 2, Unity and Union. Both equally applicable. The analogy of projector does shows the possibility of both words.
A product of unity, tend to be stable and stay in its product form; whereas a product of union is more or less conditional. Thus, a vote for union would make better sense for me.
However, there is something that bothers me. As being careful, what if the direction of interpretation is wrong? There is logical sense both words, unity and union, but there is a question of why it does not appear in the 1st Jhana? The analogy of projector does also shows the possibility of something else.
Ekodibhuto, if we split the word to ekodi+bhuta; ekodibhava to ekodi+bhava, both appear that the word is formed with the same pattern.
I find ekodibhuto, being understood as ‘Alone, ardent’, looking at the context of the passage seems completely logical. However, when both words, ekodibhuto and ekodibhava are place together, there is a similarity; render the interpretation of ekodibhuto looks suspicious. We know that, alone in the jungle, to survive is it self a struggle. So, normally, we read that a company of bhikkhus goes into the forest and ‘each will split from the pack’ to choose their own suitable spot to meditate; and each of them is not far apart from each other, and this still occurs in the tradition now in some forest bhikkhu. And that raise suspicious on rendering ekodibhava as unity or bond.
In the Jhana 1~4, we see that ekodibhava appear in the second Jhana but not the first. If we compare the structure of ekaggata and ekodibhava, to say that just because of ‘eka’, the two is synonym is a bit unconvincing; if without preconceives interpretation of both terms! I just fail to see the similarity.
Other than the 4 Jhanas, such as in MN119 (Kāyagatāsati) “sannisīdati ekodi hoti samādhiyati” without bhava; which imply that there is no ‘pack’. And we have others such as MN122 (Mahāsuññata) “saṇṭhapeti sannisādeti ekodiṃ karoti samādahati” which pretty much similar, that does not describe splitting from the pack scenario.
The question that I would like to raise is what if ekodibhuto means ‘one splitting-from/not-in the pack’; as there is similarity in the 2nd Jhana, vitakka-vicara (considered as one/a pack) ‘split-off’ from vitakka-vicara-piti-sukha; a drop off (suspends) from the pack.
If we look at how ‘di’ is use in english language, we see di’rection, di’vergent, di’gress… . In Malay, ‘di’ point to direction, in Vietnam language ‘di’ means go. What I am considering is, if there is a possibility that ekodibhava mean ‘a condition of existence whereby one drop-off from the pack’.
We may end up with no ekaggata mentioned in Jhana, which is something new. That would end up another puzzle to be solved! The question is; ekaggata, either being mentioned or not in Jhana formula, does it make any different? In the subtle development of vitakka-vicara-piti-sukha, it already well cover by ekaggata involvement; else unlikely for the pack to develop to such extent. As far as i’m concerned, i’m comfortable even though Jhana stock formula does not have the word ekaggata, i’ve never doubt its present!
Anyway, is there any indication in pali that ‘di’ is being used in the sense of split-off/drop-off/suspend? If not, part of the text above just junk, so no worries …
Found this in a search:
uḍḍeti ; (u + ḍī + e) flies ; suspends
note: my mistake, “sannisīdati ekodi hoti samādhiyati” not in 4th jhana.