How should "Kaya" in MN 119 be interpreted?

It may be that I am using the term incorrectly. I am not a scholar like many here so let me say what I mean without it.

I believe that Ud 1.10 is saying that the “self” and “that” or “the world” exist in opposition to each other. We think of an organism as being separate and apart from its environment. In actuality, they are not really separate. They are atoms and molecules interacting with each other like they do everywhere else. We think of them as separate because an ever changing set of atoms and molecules appears to take pains to preserve “itself”.

I believe that this is mirrored in the internal six senses. We think of portions of consciousness as “self” and the rest as “that” or “the world”. When we cease to think of the everchanging set of portions as self, we just have the senses. They “collapse” into one another. In fact, they were never really separate. I think oneness is an apt term, but I will leave you to be the judge.

Kuan in the book mentioned above goes into an argument to support this notion of kaya as the six sense bases which I will try to summarize below. My own reasons for considering this initially were that in practice I naturally gravitated to stretching mindfulness to include all sense fields. It also seemed like it would be relevant to the Bahiya Sutta.

Kuan argues that kaya is used to mean consciousness of the six senses in the canon. Here is a representative quote.

As discussed in Chapter 2, in the Chapana Sutta of the Salayatana
Samyutta, kayagata sati functions as a post or pillar that restrains the six senses. In the Kimsuka Sutta of the Salayatana Samyutta (SN IV 194–195)the Buddha makes a simile about a frontier city with six gates. In this simile, as he explains, “the city” represents kaya; “the six gates” represents the six internal sense bases; “the gatekeeper” represents mindfulness. It is very clear that what mindfulness is concerned with is what is going on at the six gates. This is perhaps the import of kayagata sati or kayasati in the Salayatana Samyutta, and kaya in kayagata sati/kayasati probably refers to the same as kaya in the above simile, where the city with six gates implies that kaya has six senses. In his discussion of this simile, Harvey (1995: 116–117) says, “[T]he ‘town’ of the body has ‘six gates’, which thus means that it includes the mind-organ… ‘Body’, then, can include mental processes.”

He makes many arguments and it is hard to do them justice here, but this one seems persuasive to me anyway.

Kaya in SN12.2 = SA 298 means “classes” or “groups”:
Page 162 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (67.5 KB)

What do you think about the reply to cdpatton directly above?

To clarify further. In this oneness, would there be a centre? For example, we have a sense that we reside in our bodies and a feeling that we are centred somewhere there. In your view of oneness, would one feel as if one resides in the centre of this oneness?

I ask because this feeling of a centre has been equated to the conceit of I am; meaning that if there is a feeling of a centre of experience then one has not discarded the view I am.

There would be no center.

1 Like