The Pali phrase evaṁbhūta is one of those little details that is easy to take for granted, but which seems to have more to it than meets the eye.
The grammatical basics are clear enough. Evaṁ means “such”, bhūta means “come to be”. Such past participle are often used in an adjectival sense that in a personal context may be translated “one who” (eg. sujāto means “one who is well born”). So it means “one who has come to be such”, or “one in such a state”.
While the sense of the word is then very general, there is a marked tendency for it to be used in the context of posture.
In Ja 340:4.3, the formerly wealthy donor has been reduced to penury, ultimately collapsing on the ground. Sakka urges him to give up giving, but he refuses, saying,
evaṁbhūtāpi dassāma
Even in such a state (/posture) I shall give
You can see that it refers to both a physical posture as well as a way of being, i.e. bereft of wealth and prosperity.
Likewise, in Ja 371:1.1, Dīghāyu comes across his enemy the king of Varanasi in the forest, lying on his side. He says,
“Evaṁbhūtassa te rāja,
āgatassa vase mama;
Having come across you in such a state (/posture), king,
you are in my power
In Ja 534:9.4 it describes a bird stuck in a trap, so again it refers to both his “state” of being trapped as well as the physical “state”.
In each of these cases, which we may take as representative of ordinary language rather than doctrinal contexts, evaṁbhūta means “one who is in such a state”, but with the more specific implication, “one who is in such a posture”. The posture itself is part of a narrative of being; what a person (or animal) has become is represented in their physical posture.
What, then, of the suttas? It occurs in pair of passages that are in adjacent suttas. These are repeated in AN 4.11 and AN 4.12; as well as Iti 110 and Iti 111. These deal with practicing in the four postures.
In AN 4.11, a mendicant has an unwholesome thought while walking, but does not dispel it. Even while walking (carampi), a mendicant in such a state is said to be lazy.
carampi, bhikkhave, bhikkhu evaṁbhūto ‘anātāpī anottāpī satataṁ samitaṁ kusīto hīnavīriyo’ti vuccati
AN 4.12 is similar, except it starts with the positive side, and focuses on the full development of the process leading to samādhi.
Suppose a mendicant has got rid of desire and ill will while walking, and has given up dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. Their energy is roused up and unflagging, their mindfulness is established and lucid, their body is tranquil and undisturbed, and their mind is immersed in samādhi. A mendicant in such a state is said to be ‘keen and prudent, always energetic and determined’ when walking.
But the operative phrase with evaṁbhūta at the end is the same. That means there’s really one one phrase to consider, in two similar contexts.
Finally, it occurs in a related by distinct phrase in AN 3.63. The Buddha speaks of entering all four jhanas in turn. Following this, he says:
So ce ahaṁ, brāhmaṇa, evaṁbhūto caṅkamāmi, dibbo me eso tasmiṁ samaye caṅkamo hoti.
Brahmin, if I walk in such a state, my walking at that time is heavenly.
Briefly looking afield, it is a technical term in Jainism in at least two senses.
In Jain logic it is one of the seven logical methods:
That which determines or ascertains an object as it is in its present state or mode is called the specific viewpoint (evaṃbhūta naya)
This is a similar meaning in a different context. As well as logic, it’s also used to describe the suffering experienced by different kinds of beings in the different realms of rebirth, i.e. in “such a state”. This is said to be a doctrine of non-Jains, but still correct.
Given that it occurs rarely in Pali, it’s perhaps not surprising that I can’t locate it in early Brahmanical Sanskrit. Investigating later Sanskrit would be a pleasant diversion that must wait for another time.
Okay, so let’s return to the suttas, where the sense is quite remarkably consistent. In each case, evaṁbhūta refers to both the physical posture as well as the mental condition of one in that posture. The point of interest is that both AN 3.63 as well as AN 4.12 appear to refer to a practitioner who is walking while in samādhi. I noted this in my A Swift Pair of Messengers in relation to AN 4.12:
One passage speaks of a monk establishing the ‘mind one-pointed in samādhi’ while in all four postures, including walking. This would seem to be difficult to square with the usual understanding of jhāna, although it would not necessarily directly contradict anything in the suttas. Everything else in this sutta, though, is quite standard—virtue, abandoning the hindrances, energy, mindfulness, bodily tranquillity (which strikes me as slightly odd in the context of walking), and samādhi, with a verse extolling both samatha and vipassanā. Perhaps we might suspect some slightly clumsy editing; and we should not forget the many times when the meditator sits down cross-legged before entering samādhi.
It looks like I didn’t mention AN 3.63, which is an oversight on my part. Ven Bodhi, however, notes the following:
Mp [the commentary to AN] says that his walking back and forth is celestial when, having entered the four jhanas, he walks back and forth … The seems to imply that walking can occur even with the mind in jhana. This, however, is contradicted by the dominant understanding that jhana is uninterrupted absorption in an object, in which case intentional movements like walking would not be possible. Mp-ṭ [the subcommentary] explains … to mean that he walks back and forth immediately after emerging from the jhana. …
So his position appears that the commentary understands the text as meaning the mendicant is still in the jhana when walking, but he implies the explanation is not fully explicit. So either the subcommentary has a different opinion or the meaning of the commentary is not so definitive.
I’m sure there will be other discussions of this matter, but that’s what I’ve got for now. Oh, one more detail, none of the Pali suttas have parallels. This generally speaking would make us question their authenticity, but it should be remembered that many Anguttara suttas lack parallels, which has to do with the texts available in Chinese. So we can’t really infer much from this, except to say that, so far as I know, they lack the positive support of a parallel.
When I translated these passages, it seemed to me at the time that evaṁbhūta had a more general sense, leaning on the past participle, something like “as a person who has been in such a state”, or “one who is practicing in this way”. Thus it would refer more generally to the fact that someone of such a state of samadhi would live in a heavenly way, rather than meaning strictly while in that posture.
Ven @Sunyo has discussed this point in more detail.
But this more detailed review is giving me pause on that. The two aspects seem closely linked, the general “state” one is in and the “posture” that state is associated with go together.
Let me go back to my comment in A Swift Pair of Messengers and see if it holds up.
Perhaps we might suspect some slightly clumsy editing
This is, I think, supportable in AN 4.12, because there the sutta expands on the previous sutta. So it seems plausible that the phrase was copied over, and so I think this holds up. It’s not so easy in the case of AN 3.63, which can’t be explained in the same way.
bodily tranquillity (which strikes me as slightly odd in the context of walking)
“Bodily tranquility” normally refers to the extremely subtle energies in the quieted breath, which when seated become so subtle as to virtually disappear. This happens long before jhana. In fourth jhana—which is specifically referred to—the breath is said to disappear completely, which seems impossible to reconcile with maintaining a walking posture. It’s a bit hard to say, though. I’m always reluctant to push meanings too far. I wouldn’t say this is definitive, but it does seem unlikely to me.
we should not forget the many times when the meditator sits down cross-legged before entering samādhi
As always, we should not let one or two passages of dubious meaning affect the interpretation of the many clear and central passages. These three small suttas are meant to illustrate a certain point. AN 4.11 and AN 4.12 are meant to illustrate that it is important to practice in any posture. AN 3.63 is meant to point to the happiness of the Buddha’s meditation. None of them are meant to overturn our understanding of meditation.
So there are a few issues here; let me sum up.
- The phrase does, unless I have my Pali wrong, seem to indicate that the different postures are undertaken by someone in such a state of samadhi.
- There are no parallels.
- Editorial slippage is plausible in AN 4.12.
- Almost every time meditation is spoken of it is in a sitting posture.
- Bodily tranquility may be inconsistent with walking.
One further point that I have not considered so far. Ven Bodhi refers to “intentional movements like walking”. But is walking necessarily intentional? Normally, of course, it is, but then, so is sitting. Without an active application of will, one will normally slouch and slump.
I had one time when I was super-tired, walking meditation in the early morning at Wat Nanachat. I was walking meditation back and forth at the back of the sala. Then I came to, and I was now walking along the side of the sala. Not my proudest moment! We all know, of course, that sleepwalking is possible. It seems to me that there’s no intrinsic reason why one shouldn’t be able to continue to walk on autopilot. And it was this that I was referring to (IIRC) when I said, “it would not necessarily directly contradict anything in the suttas”.
Perhaps one reading of this is that in rare cases it is possible to enter jhana while walking, and during that state the posture is regulated on autopilot, just as normally the breathing and the sitting posture would be. I don’t know. This doesn’t really solve the problem of bodily tranquillity, however.
My personal opinion, on review of all these contexts, is that the overall thrust of the suttas is clear that meditation takes place while sitting, and these are minor suttas whose purpose is really about something quite unrelated. In a big corpus, there will always be difficulties of interpretation. So I don’t think this is sufficient to change a fundamental understanding, but they are an interesting point of contrast.
