Pulling on the thread of Frank’s comment here regarding MN 125 by following through on Bhikkhu Bodhi’s footnote to the relevant portion (n.1177) leading to a study by Bhikkhu Analayo (fortunately carried by Library Genesis for those so inclined [1]), I ran into AN 9.38 which presents the most convincing case I’ve seen for the no-sound-no-body position:
These five objects of sensual pleasure are called ‘the world’ in the Noble One’s discipline. (tr. Bodhi)
Though this particular definition of loka is subsumed by one that includes all six senses elsewhere, it nevertheless bolsters the no-sound-no-body position since, as we read further, we have:
Ayaṃ vuccati, brāhmaṇā, ‘bhikkhu lokassa antamāgamma, lokassa ante viharati’.
[A bhikkhu dwelling in first jhāna] is called a bhikkhu who, having come to the end of the world, dwells at the end of the world.
So dwelling in first jhana (and all others) is here called dwelling “at the end of the world of the five senses” (though he has not escaped the world and is still part of the world).
At the very least, the quoted passage would be suggesting that the list of adjectives in the definition of the five kāmaguṇā are descriptive of all objects of the five senses rather than acting as restricting conditions for which of the objects of the five senses qualify (the reading I’d been favouring atleast).
I think for the contrary position to be tenable in the face of this sutta, we’d have to weaken the defining of loka here (not implausible given that it’s already subsumed by a broader definition that includes mind) by adopting the ‘restricting’ meaning behind the aforementioned adjective list.
However, AK Warder’s Introduction to Pali says this is grammatically unlikely (pg 61):
When an adjective, or (all the) adjectives, follows its noun this usually indicates that it is being “predicated” of the noun, or in other words that the attribute in question is being emphasized. One should then translate “… who is/which is…”. If we use the terms “nexus” and “junction” then the word order adjective+noun usually indicates junction and the order noun+adjective (or equally another noun in the same case) indicates nexus. When there is no verb in the sentence, however, we understand a nexus regardless of the order; then the placing of a nexus-adjective first indicates emphasis of it (as in an argument).*
(footnote to the last sentence reads:
In Pali word order is important chiefly for the sake of being able to deviate from it for effect. This may explain why some severe philologists have refused to countenance it.
Bhikkhu Analayo also notes in the aforementioned study:
SA 559 at T II 146c6 indicates that, even though the six senses and their objects are present and one is perceptive during the attainment of the first absorption, the objects of these senses will not be experienced.
Does anyone know whether an English translation of this Āgama is forthcoming? Sounds super-relevant. I’d be very curious to know how the distinction between “present” and “experienced” is made.
Stepping back a bit, I do hope that we might come up with a good way to organize the topic. Perhaps when I find the time, I’ll try to come up with some kind of argument tree format or something and herd together the arguments that have already been made.
eg:
Arguments for:
- …
1.1 Counterargument: …
1.1.1 Countercounterargument …
etc. etc
[1] More specifically, in the order they lead to one another:
- Majjhima Nikaya, Bodhi, MN 125, n.1177
- Majjhima Comparative Study vol. 2, Analayo, p.721, n.175
- “Hindu, Buddhist, and Daoist Meditation”, Halvor Eifring et. al., p.78, n.25
Bhikkhu Analayo’s study in the third is entitled “The First Aborption in Early Indian Buddhism” and contains the footnote re: AN 9.38.