Bakmoon wrote:I think the knowing of the factors had to occur as they occurred just from the grammar. It says:Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided.
This is grammatically distinctive in this sutta, as in the case of the terms samanupassati and pajanati, the terms were being used as the main verb, but the word we are interested in here is a participle used as an adverb, which implies contemporaneity, because the participle is describing how the action occurred. When it says "Known to him they arose" it means that they arose in a way which was known to him.
That's my analysis, although I freely admit that it is possible that Pali participles work differently than in other languages.
Could you explain why the past participle viditā here appears to you to function adverbially? I think the general rule is for adverbs to be declined to the accusative? (see Geiger p.95) It should be an adjective, qualifying the noun dhammā.
It's not an easy passage, since the "tyāssa dhammā viditā uppajjanti" might be the continuation of preceding the ya-ta correlative clause that goes "Ye ca paṭhame jhāne ...tyāssa dhammā anupadavavatthitā honti". Bearing in mind that the honti appears to be functioning as an auxiliary verb, might it be possible that uppajjanti etc are also auxiliary in nature? Admittedly, this is unlikely, given Warder's short list of auxiliaries at Cap 24.
I am inclined to agree that the viditā is contemporaneous with the state's arising etc, but again, I am of the view that this has nothing to do with vipassanā. I interpret vipassanā to be the outcome of ruminative contemplation, whereas the absence of any mention of viditā in the 2 post-saññāsamāpattis suggests that vavattheti and vindati are allied to perception, rather than analysis.