KN Ps Paṭisambhidāmagga: what does it say about jhāna, 16 APS, 4sp, 7sb?

I was reading Ps for about 5 hours yesterday, it was genuinely exciting and stimulating. Who would have thought?

I started with the free PDF that B.Dhammanando linked to recently,

Mindfulness of
Breathing
(Ánápánasati)
uddhist Texts from the Páli Ca
and
tracts from the Páli Commenta
Translated from the Páli by
Bhikkhu Ñáóamoli

Part 3 of the book gives the explanation of 16 APS (anapanasati) excerpted from KN Ps.

I’ll quote a couple really interesting lines that shed light on the first 4 steps of 16 APS.

But what is unclear to me, is how it works with jhāna and 7sb (satta bojjhanga, awakening factors).

In particular, how is kāya understood in Ps explanation of 7sb? I would assume it’s the same as it is in 16 APS (which I’ll quote below).

I read through the part of the Ps book on 4sp (satipatthana), and it made a lot of sense. I’ll talk about that later, but I wanted to ask the community here if the 4 jhānas, and perhaps the 4 classic jhana similes are detailed in Ps, like it is in Vimuttimagga and Vism? And If so, can you tell me what chapter? I skimmed through the book, but did not find what I was looking for so far.

The reason I found Ps exciting was because I had presumed they would have the same position as Vism. and Abhidhamma on many of the key issues on the controversy of kāya and the nature of jhāna, but it looks like it might be a lot different then what I presumed.

I believe B. Dhammanando said KN Ps was the earliest Theravada commentary, and is attributed to Sariputta. It would be interesting to to trace how Sariputta, post parinibbana no less, managed to change his understanding of jhāna from MN 111, to KN Ps, to Abhidhamma and Vism.

(Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension)

  1. (§37). For one who knows one-pointedness and nondistraction of mind 170 by means of long in-breaths and out-breaths,
    feelings are known as they arise, known as they appear, known as
    they subside. Perceptions are known as they arise, known as they
    appear, known as they subside. Applied thoughts are known as
    they arise, known as they appear, known as they subside.

(whole body experienced, body is mental and physical)

  1. (§48). “Experiencing the whole body,’ I shall breathe in, thus he trains himself;experiencing the whole body,’ I
    shall breathe out, thus he trains himself.”
    “Body”: There are two bodies—the mentality-body and the
    materiality-body.
    Feeling, perception, volition, sense-impression, attention
    mentality and the mentality-body—and those (things) which
    are called the mental formations—this is the mentality-body. 176
    The four great primaries and the materiality derived from
    the four great primaries—in-breath and out-breath and the sign

for the binding (of mindfulness)—and those (things) which are
called the bodily formations—this is the materiality-body.177
43. (§49). “Experiencing”: for one who knows onepointedness and non-distraction of mind through breathing in
long, breathing out long, breathing in short, breathing out short,
mindfulness is established. By means of that mindfulness and
that knowledge those bodies are experienced.178

(kaya sankhara defined, more than just breath)

  1. (§51). “Calming the bodily formation, I shall breathe in,’ thus he trains himself;calming the bodily formation, I
    shall breathe out,’ thus he trains himself.”
    “Bodily-formation”: long in-breaths, long out-breaths, short in
    breaths, short out-breaths, breathing in experiencing the whole body,
    breathing out experiencing the whole body—these things are bodily
    properties; being bound up with the body they are bodily
    formations.180 He trains himself by calming, causing to cease,
    pacifying, those bodily formations.
    Such bodily formations whereby there is bending backward,
    sideways, all ways, forward, shaking, trembling, moving of the
    body—“`calming the bodily formation, I shall breathe in,’ thus
    he trains himself; ‘calming the bodily formation, I shall breathe
    out,’ thus he trains himself.”
    Such bodily formations whereby there is no bending

backward, sideways, all ways, forward, shaking, trembling,
moving of the body—”`Calming the quiet and subtle bodily
formation, I shall breathe in,’ thus he trains himself; ‘calming the
quiet and subtle bodily formation, I shall breathe out,’ thus he
trains himself.

3 Likes

Hi Frank,

You may also find useful a reworked translation by Geoff Shatz:

http://dhamma.ru/forum/index.php?topic=417.msg9193#msg9193

Yes, Patisambhidamagga is coherent, and definition from one part applies to others.

Vimuttimagga gives a similar explanation:

(3) “‘Experiencing the whole body, I breathe in,’ thus he trains himself:” In two ways he knows the whole body, through non-confusion and through the object. Q. What is the knowledge of the whole body through non-confusion? A. A yogin practises mindfulness of respiration and develops concentration through contact accompanied by joy and bliss. Owing to the experiencing of contact accompanied by joy and bliss the whole body becomes non-confused. Q. What is the knowledge of the whole body through the object? A. The incoming breath and the outgoing breath comprise the bodily factors dwelling in one sphere. The object of respiration and the mind and the mental properties are called “body.” These bodily factors are called “body.” Thus should the whole body be known.

There are some descriptions, e.g. in the chapter 5 “On Liberation”.

2 Likes

‘Commentary’ is actually Geoff Shatz’s description of it. I wouldn’t describe it this way myself, for although some of the Paṭisambhidāmagga takes the form of commentary on suttas (e.g., on the Yuganaddhasutta, AN4.170), far more of it (and in particular the overarching scheme of the work) is original exposition.

[quote=“frankk, post:1, topic:5474”]
and is attributed to Sariputta. It would be interesting to to trace how Sariputta, post parinibbana no less, managed to change his understanding of jhāna from MN 111, to KN Ps, to Abhidhamma and Vism.[/quote]

I said that the work was “legendarily attributed to Sāriputta”. However, as a putative historical claim this attribution ought to be treated with the same reservation that one would treat the attribution of the Kaccāyana-vyākaraṇa (the earliest treatise on Pali grammar) to the Buddha’s disciple Kaccāna. It was a common practice in Indian religious writing that if a work by some unknown or little-known writer came to be held in high esteem, then the votaries of that work would reassign the authorship to some eminent person of whose talents they thought it worthy.

That being so, there isn’t much point in enquiring about “Sāriputta’s” change of understanding, for the attribution of the work to him is likelier a matter of piety than historiography.

5 Likes

I think this happen even now.
:slight_smile:

KN Ps is frequently quoted in Vism., so is Abhidhamma, and Ps seems to be considered by some as part of early Abhidhamma.

I didn’t actually believe Sariputta is literally the author of all of those works, but Ven. Sariputta is a very convenient reference point to show the absurdity of how early Abhidhamma and late Abhidhamma don’t agree on important core concepts such as body/kaaya, nature of absorption jhaana, etc.

Many orthodox Theravadins don’t regard Sariputta as a legendary author of Abhidhamma, they accept it as literal historical truth. One very famous meditation master and master of Abhidhamma, when asked about MN 111, replied something to the effect (I heard it second hand, don’t have exact quote), that only Sariputta was wise and fast enough to be able to examine the rise and fall of all of those mental factors while in jhaana. The ordinary meditator has to follow the usual Vism. model of jhaana, emerging from it before examining mental factors. They also literally believe the Jataka tales. They believe the Jataka tales are literal historical truth.

2 Likes

(comment on attributing doctrinal works by anonymous or lesser known authors to a famous person)

Not just in Buddhism, probably most religions. People really should stop this practice. It just promotes more confusion and wrong views in the world. You’re not doing any favors to Sariputta when you attribute contradicting views on important doctrinal points. I understand the intent by doing that is to show respect, but especially if you’re attributing wrong views to a famous person, I can’t think of a worse way to disrespect and defile their good name.

1 Like

Vimt. is a fantastic resource on 16 APS (anapanasati). I was really blown away when I read it, because since it is also based in Abhidhamma, and has 40 meditation topics (including 10 kasinas), I was expecting something similar to Vism. But it’s way closer to Ven. T (thanissaro) explanation of 16 APS and Ajahn Lee method 2 than Vism.

So looking at a rough time line:

KN Ps composed maybe c. B.C. 237 after sabbatthivada schism?
one of the later texts of KN?

Vimt. , upatissa lived from 40 BC, 1AD. upatissa may have been teh first “sariputta”

Vism. comes around 5 or 6 AD.

Maybe the first 500-600 years after Buddha’s parinibbana, there was no controversy on jhana and kaya (body).

That I’m skimming through KN Ps. looking for word by word commentary on standard Jhana formula and not finding it probably means there was no need to comment since everyone understood the plain wording of the EBT original.

It’s noteworthy that Vimuttimagga, when quoting Patisambhidamagga, refers to it as to “Abhidhamma”.

[quote=“frankk, post:7, topic:5474”]
and has 40 meditation topics (including 10 kasinas), I was expecting something similar to Vism. But it’s way closer to Ven. T (thanissaro) explanation of 16 APS and Ajahn Lee method 2 than Vism.[/quote]

Yes, “kasina” was back then understood correctly as “totality”, and in Ajahn Lee’s method the perception of body is totally coloured by air nimitta. In Ven. Thanissaro’s method - by “breath energy”, which is essentially the same.

Vimuttimagga gives a similar description:

“To the yogin who attends to the incoming breath with mind that is cleansed of the nine lesser defilements [described as well in Patisambhidamagga] the image [nimitta, representation of object-support, in this case of air] arises with a pleasant feeling similar to that which is produced in the action of spinning cotton or silk cotton. Also, it is likened to the pleasant feeling produced by a breeze [note that nimitta is tactile here]. Thus in breathing in and out, air touches the nose or the lip and causes the setting-up of air perception mindfulness. This does not depend on colour or form. This is called the image. If the yogin develops the image [sign] and increases it at the nose-tip, between the eyebrows, on the forehead or establishes it in several places, he feels as if his head were filled with air [tactile nimitta totally (kasina) colours perception of the body]. Through increasing in this way his whole body is charged with bliss. This is called perfection.”

(Mindfulness of Respiration. Procedure, pp.158-159)

https://archive.org/stream/ArahantUpatossa-Vimuttimagga-PathOfFreedom.pdf/ArahantUpatissaEharaN.r.tr-PathOfFreedomvimuttimagga#page/n221/mode/2up/
This forgotten connection is still preserved in the Atthakatha:

“But is this all the absorption belonging to the consciousness of the sphere of refined form, beginning with the earth kasiṇa and ending in the perception of the skeleton? Or is there anything else?”
“Yes, there is. There is ānāpāna jhāna and the development of kāyagatāsati, which have not been spoken of here.”
“Why not?”
“Because ānāpāna jhāna is included in the air kasiṇa; the development of kāyagatāsati arisen by virtue of the fourfold and fivefold jhānas with reference to the hair etc., is included in the colour kasiṇas; the kāyagatāsati produced by virtue of the jhānas attending to the unattractiveness in the thirty-two parts of the body, and that of the jhāna attending to the colours of the nine kinds of corpses in the charnel grounds is included in the ten repulsive things. Thus all the absorptions of consciousness connected with the sphere of refined form have been included here.”
(DhsA. 200)

Rather one of the earliest, as B.C. Law writes:

        (5)   The   Digha,   Vols.    II   &   III,   the
    Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the
    Suttavibhanga,    the     Patisambhidamagga,     the
    Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/bcl.htm

Hi. This is my first post here! :slight_smile: I love the overall approach of this site of using comparative textual analysis of the suttas to attempt to try to reach back through the various sutta streams and strata to the source.

I suppose that, in principle, a similar approach could be taken with the practice of meditation: several disparate early meditation manuals taken and the core overlapping parts in common identified. I’m far from being an expert, however it seems that, unlike with the suttas, there’s a severe lack of data points: really only the Visuddhimagga, the Vimuttimagga, and the Patisambhidamagga as mentioned earlier. Hopefully there are some more obscure untranslated ones out there somewhere. The suttas are also very scant on details, e.g. it seems to me that making much sense of the kasinas would probably be difficult relying just on the suttas.

Probably all to do with the oral transmission of the dhamma for several hundred years after the Buddha’s life. The discourses of the Buddha had to be systematized orally if they were to be preserved at all. There was no such imperative for practical nuts-and-bolts meditation techniques. The practice details, I guess, were just passed on orally. Probably really didn’t occur to people to systematize them orally in the same manner. Unfortunately, that left a lot more time and plenty of scope for drift and mutation, the incorporation of outside influences etc. If the Buddha had been born into a written culture, then it’s likely several meditation manuals would have been written in the decades after his death. In an oral culture, though, practices were just handed on, likely with quite a degree of change over time.

Anyway, to eventually get around to the point of my post :slight_smile: , with the Visuddhimagga, the Vimuttimagga, the Patisambhidamagga and jhanas all being mentioned, the following article by Bhikkhu Sona came to mind (from Leigh Brasington’s site):
http://www.leighb.com/case_of_the_missing_simile.htm

This essay traces the development of the nimitta concept through the Patisambhidamagga, the Vimuttimagga, and finally the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be asking whether the nimatta was a later development in the Visuddhimagga sense. IMO he makes a good, if far from conclusive, case.

I’m not an experienced meditator (certainly have no experience with full-blown jhana though have encountered some bliss, more like mere “access concentration”). Mostly have been trying to get more basic parts of the path in order for the past few years (I believe in letting things develop naturally and in sequence and not forcing things). Have been trying to get some sense of some of the full range of mindfulness and jhana practices in recent months. The secondary second-hand are quite varied to say the least! :slight_smile: Therefore it’s interesting to have a look at more primary sources.

I’m sure nimittas are a useful tool. I’m pragmatic If I later find they are the approach that works best for me, I won’t worry too much about how early the technique is! :wink:

Though, how would (or even could) anapanasati work without using a nimitta? Could one use the breath sensation at the nose or lip all the way through and get to higher jhanas? I’ve seen arguments here using the Thorn Sutta (AN 10:72). That certainly seems a good indicator of how at least some of the senses get zoned out in absorbed states. Even in everyday life there have been times I’ve so absorbed in an activity that I haven’t heard someone calling my name etc. I can easily imagine such an effect would get hugely intensified in strong absorption states. However, I’m not sure how far one can take that Thorn Sutta argument. The same sutta says in-and-out breathing is a thorn to the fourth jhana. That seems to imply that a certain body awareness has not been lost (why would breathing be a thorn if all body awareness has been lost?). Hearing and awareness of physical breathing seem to get a different treatment (though this may just be the typical misunderstanding of a newbie).

I’ve seen various schemes where parts of the anapanasati sutta if/when the sutta’s scheme is being used for jhana practice. Usually the fourth tetrad is designated purely for non-jhanic insight practice, but could cessation in the fourth tetrad also sometimes correspond with cessation of the the breath (the key focus of this practice) and actual awareness of the stilling of that physical process as the fourth jhana is reached? Just a random thought that occurred to me.

5 Likes

Welcome! :anjal:

There are some untranslated manuscripts that hopefully can shed some light on this topic, e.g.

http://digital.soas.ac.uk/AA00000305

This article prompted my research of the term ‘nimitta’ many years ago. And here’s the result: Pali Term: Nimitta - Dhamma Wheel

Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu answers them:
http://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_72.html#an10.72note03

This issue hinges on the definition of ‘body’ which we discuss here.

This is not corroborated by Patisambhidamagga, Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga.

The fouth tetrad is rather a shortened version of ‘seven recognitions’ (saññā):

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2834#p40805

Good luck with further research!

1 Like

SC (sutta central) has the english abhdihamma vibhanga now, which is very cool.

I’m looking at the passadhi-bojjhanga definition in there, I’m trying to figure out, how do they get that kaya is body of mental aggregates from the pali in the english translation?

:diamonds: tattha katamo passaddhisambojjhaṅgo? atthi kāyapassaddhi VAR, atthi cittapassaddhi VAR . yadapi kāyapassaddhi tadapi passaddhisambojjhaṅgo abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati. yadapi cittapassaddhi tadapi passaddhisambojjhaṅgo abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati.

english tranlsastion (PTS presumably)

Therein what is calmness-awakening-factor? There is calmness of the body (of mental aggregates); there is calmness of consciousness. That which is calmness of body, that calmness-awakening-factor is for full knowledge, for awakening, for full emancipation also. That which is calmness of consciousness;
that calmness-awakening-factor is for full knowledge, for awakening, for full emancipation also. (5)

Who is injecting the parenthetical “of mental aggregates”, and why?
The pali “kaaya” looks like just the same anatomical body as in standard EBT definition such as SN 46.2 kaaya sutta under kaaya-passsadhi.

The point of the abhidhamma vibhanga is to show the difference between standard sutta interpretation and the abhidhamma reinterpretation of basic concepts (bojjhanga factors in this passage).

So my question is, where is kāya-passaddhi being redefined? Are they importing the kāya from the abhidhamma interpretation, or did they genuinely believe kāya in the EBT also meant “body of mental aggregates”?

U Thittila is giving an expansive translation of the terms according to their definitions in the Abhidhamma Piṭaka’s Dhammasaṅgaṇī and in the Vibhaṅga Atthakathā.

Katamā tasmiṃ samaye kāyapassaddhi hoti? Yā tasmiṃ samaye vedanākkhandhassa saññākkhandhassa saṅkhārakkhandhassa passaddhi paṭipassaddhi passambhanā paṭipassambhanā paṭipassambhitattaṃ—ayaṃ tasmiṃ samaye kāyapassaddhi hoti.

Katamā tasmiṃ samaye cittapassaddhi hoti? Yā tasmiṃ samaye viññāṇakkhandhassa passaddhi paṭipassaddhi passambhanā paṭipassambhanā paṭipassambhitattaṃ—ayaṃ tasmiṃ samaye cittapassaddhi hoti.
(Ds2.1.1)

Kāyapassaddhī ti tiṇṇaṃ khandhānaṃ darathapassaddhi.

Bodily tranquillity is tranquillization of distress in the three aggregates [i.e., feeling, perception, formations].

Cittapassaddhī ti viññāṇakkhandhassa darathapassaddhi.

Mental tranquillity is tranquillization of distress in the consciousness aggregate.
(Vibh-a. 314; Dispeller of Delusion II. 31 )

2 Likes

Thanks! Now must just master the emojiis here (Buddhist ones too)!

“Kasiṇa-bhāvanā” is a fairly tantalizing title alright!

I’ve had a quick look at your linked posts/thread there. There’s a lot of interesting research there, which I’ll look through more carefully and slowly when I’ve more time. It seems to be the case that nimitta can be refer to both internal and external contexts. Making a call as to which holds in particular cases probably requires, if it is even possible, at minimum, a lot of background knowledge of the suttas in Pali, which you most definitely seem to have. The “sign” in Visuddhimagga does seem definitely internal and visual, still internal in the Vimuttimagga but in a somewhat more equivocal way, and IIRC in the section on anapanasati in the Patisambhidamagga seems, to my eyes anyway, to be external and tactile (arising in connection with the breath as it gets finer and finer). I’ll defer to your knowledge (for now :wink: ). Maybe someday if I ever become a bit more knowledgeable and I’m still of the same opinion I’ll be able to marshal a good counterargument! :slight_smile:

IMO there are three possible broad readings of “hearing” in that sutta. Some have used the reference to argue that sensual impressions do not exist in the first jhana. Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is amongst many who hold an opposing opinion.

A third possible reading is that extrapolating “hearing” to all sensory input is akin to adding 1+1 and getting 3. Why was the word “hearing” chosen here if what was intended was the whole sensory range? In everyday life, as mentioned earlier, I have had at times become so engrossed in something (perhaps a gripping novel) that my hearing sense has zoned out to some limited extent (though obviously not some of my other senses). Maybe hearing naturally is the first sense which people tune out of in the way into jhana. I know there’s a theoretical scheme of a kind of progressive renunciation as jhana successively deepens. That seems to at least partly underlie the concept of complete sensory renunciation at first jhana. It’s a neat idea, but maybe too neat and maybe reading into this sutta more than is actually there.

Extrapolating “hearing” to all sensory perception seems too permissive a reading to me. Thanissaro’s interpretation is certainly a coherent and reasonable one. However, to me anyway, the third option, the stilling of hearing (but just hearing) is the most natural read when things are confined to just that sutta.

However, these are all matters of probabilities. I’d consider there’s a non-negligible chance that any of these three may be the “correct” one. To use some geeky humour, everything always goes back to Bayes theorem ! :slight_smile: Given my state of knowledge, my Bayesian prior probability distribution contains a large dose of uncertainty and is probably liable to shift at any moment! :wink:

And, for some matters in the suttas, it may well be the case that the “correct” original meaning will never be known with any certainty, unfortunately (perhaps the interpretation of “body” in the anapanasati sutta might be a case in point, or not, as the case may be).

Thanks for the link. Sure, I went out on a rather random and speculative (and I know uncorroborated) limb there.

You’re welcome! And it looks like this will be a very useful site to help in that process!

1 Like

Hi Frank,

Nettipakarana gives quite similar definition (sorry, no translation):

“kāyo””ti ekattatā. tattha katamo kāyo? nāmakāyo rūpakāyo ca. tattha katamo rūpakāyo? kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ pittaṃ semhaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttaṃ matthaluṅganti — ayaṃ rūpakāyo. nāmakāyo nāma vedanā saññā cetanā cittaṃ phasso manasikāroti — ayaṃ nāmakāyoti.

(Nett, 4. paṭiniddesavāro, 14. adhiṭṭhānahāravibhaṅgo, para. 22)

“Mentality-body” is defined here in almost exactly the same way as in your Patisambhidamagga quote, and “materiality-body” as 32 body parts, known from Satipatthana sutta.

3 Likes

I see SC has Abhidhamma Piṭaka’s Dhammasaṅgaṇī listed as the first item in the 7 books of Th. ABhidhamma. Does that mean everything in that book is presumed to be a basis the the remaining 6 books must be consistent with, or are the 7 books relatively independent with different authors?

“Vibhaṅga Atthakathā.”, that would be the main commentary for the Abhdhamma Vibhanga (book 2) correct?

Ok, now I understand why the author U Thittila added the parenthetical comments, but I wonder if that really was the intended meaning of the original author? Because for the 7sb (awakening factors) section of Vibhanga, the sutta portion did not specifiy kaya as mental body. In fact the kaya passaddhi is being contrasted with citta passaddhi, the mind & body dichotomy from universal human experience, so it would seem pretty ludicrous for kaya in that context to mean “mental aggregate and mind” dichotomy from the EBT perspective. In the section of the book for the Abhidhamma interpretation of the kaya-passadhi, it does indeed redefine it as mental aggregates that explicitly excludes the anatomical body.

10.2. Analysis According To Abhidhamma

Therein what is calmness-awakening-factor? That which
of the aggregate of feeling,
of the aggregate of perception,
of the aggregate of volitional activities,
of the aggregate of consciousness is calmness,
serenity, being calm, being serene,
state of being serene, calmness-awakening-factor.
This is called calmness-awakening-factor. (5)

:diamonds: tattha katamo passaddhisambojjhaṅgo? yā
vedanākkhandhassa
saññākkhandhassa
saṅkhārakkhandhassa
viññāṇakkhandhassa passaddhi
paṭippassaddhi passambhanā paṭippassambhanā
paṭippassambhitattaṃ passaddhisambojjhaṅgo —
ayaṃ vuccati “passaddhisambojjhaṅgo”.

So as far as I can see, the Abhidhamma Vibhanga author is being up front and giving a full disclosure, that kaya passadhi under EBT definition and under Abhidhamma definition are different, in order to make the Abhidhamma coherent within itself.

I went through and looked at the previous definitions of kaya before the chapter on 7sb (awakening factors), and kaya is the anatomical body. Working up backwards from 7sb:

under 4sp (satipatthana), kaya anupassana is 31 body parts under sutta method.
under 12ps (dependent origination) under the abhidhamma method,
under abhidahmma analysis, nama rupa

:diamonds: 228. tattha katamaṃ viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ? atthi nāmaṃ, atthi rūpaṃ. tattha katamaṃ nāmaṃ? vedanākkhandho, saññākkhandho, saṅkhārakkhandho — idaṃ vuccati “nāmaṃ” . tattha katamaṃ rūpaṃ? cattāro mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ — idaṃ vuccati “rūpaṃ”. iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ. idaṃ vuccati “viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ”.

:diamonds: 229. tattha katamaṃ nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ? cakkhāyatanaṃ, sotāyatanaṃ, ghānāyatanaṃ, jivhāyatanaṃ, kāyāyatanaṃ, manāyatanaṃ — idaṃ vuccati “nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ”.

rupa is the 4 great elements, and the kaya-ayatanam that arises in dependence on nama-rupa is anatomical body, from the previous chapter…

under the chapter of 6 indriya - kaya is anatomical body made up of 4 elements

:diamonds: tattha katamaṃ sotindriyaṃ … pe … ghānindriyaṃ … pe … jivhindriyaṃ … pe … kāyindriyaṃ? yo kāyo catunnaṃ mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya pasādo … pe … suñño gāmopeso — idaṃ vuccati “kāyindriyaṃ”.

under the chapter of dhatu /elements, kaya is again anatomical body of 4 elements

  1. abhidhammabhājanīyaṃ

:diamonds: tattha katamā kāyadhātu? yo kāyo catunnaṃ mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya pasādo … pe … suñño gāmopeso — ayaṃ vuccati “kāyadhātu”.

under chapter of ayanata ( 6 sense bases), again kaya is anatomical body of 4 elements

:diamonds: 160. tattha katamaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ? yo kāyo catunnaṃ mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya pasādo attabhāvapariyāpanno anidassano sappaṭigho, yena kāyena anidassanena sappaṭighena phoṭṭhabbaṃ anidassanaṃ sappaṭighaṃ phusi vā phusati vā phusissati vā phuse vā, kāyopeso kāyāyatanampetaṃ kāyadhātupesā kāyindriyampetaṃ lokopeso dvārāpesā samuddopeso paṇḍarampetaṃ khettampetaṃ vatthumpetaṃ orimaṃ tīrampetaṃ suñño gāmopeso. idaṃ vuccati “kāyāyatanaṃ”.

So there seems to be no reason to see the “sutta method” portion of 7sb chapter under kaya-passadhi suddenly change from Vibhanga’s prior use of kāya as the anatomical body made of four elements.

There would then be no contrast with the “abhidhamma method” re-definition under 7sb of kaya-passadhi that excludes the anatomical body and redefines kaya as “mental aggregates”.

To reiterate, I would take the author of Vibhanga at face value and assume they recognize there was a difference between EBT understanding of kaya-passadhi in 7sb versus Abhidhamma’s redefinition.

Whereas the English translation with parenthesis inserted, saying something very different, that lo and behold, the Buddha clearly meant “kaya as body of mental aggregates” in EBT, and we’re just confirming it under the abhdihamma explicit definition.

This is insane! The Atthikatha (main commentary to this book) would not need to clarify that by adding parenthesis if it was indeed understood this way.

If the Atthikatha is correct in their understanding, one could only conclude the Buddha was very negligent and sloppy about specifying exactly what he means by “kaya”.

does Nettipakarana or KN Ps ever give word by word gloss of standard jhana formula, or kaya-passadhi of passadhi-bojjhanga?

1 Like

Samadhanga sutta makes it clear that standard jhana formula is about physical body:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html

Even Atthakatha explains “this very body” in this passage:

imameva kāyanti imaṃ karajakāyaṃ.

as “body born of actions”, i.e. the physical body.

and “whole body” as skin, flesh, blood, etc.

sabbāvato kāyassāti assa bhikkhuno sabbakoṭṭhāsavato kāyassa kiñci upādinnakasantatipavattiṭṭhāne chavimaṃsalohitānugataṃ aṇumattampi ṭhānaṃ paṭhamajjhānasukhena aphuṭaṃ nāma na hoti.

2 Likes

Hi Nibbanka

Karajakāya appears AN 10.219 - eg

“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body (iminā karajakāyena) is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along.’

Now, is this karajakāya which you take to be a physical body also the same kāya in this pericope about death -

kāyassa bhedā
with the breakup of the body

I would suggest that both kāyas are the same, given how AN 10.217 to 219 form a neat series that tie both together in meaning.

What do you say?

Hi Sylvester,

Yes, the same.

Thanks Nibbanka.

In that case, the kāya in karajakāya and “kāyassa bhedā” is not referring to a physical body, but one’s embodiment in this life.

I pointed out previously that in place of the standard term manomaya kāya, DN 9 uses a synonym - manomaya attapaṭilābha. This “acquisition of self” is applied to all types of existence, ie the oḷārika (coarse), the manomaya (mind-made) and the arūpa (formless).

Thankfully, we have preserved in the Agama version what is possibly older language, where the standard kāya is applied all types of existence, including the formless existence.

Now, in case you wonder if DA 28 is corrupt, DN 1 preserves the very same idiom here -

Tamañño evamāha: ‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṃ tvaṃ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; no ca kho, bho, ayaṃ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. Atthi kho, bho, añño attā dibbo rūpī manomayo sabbaṅ­gapaccaṅgī ahīnindriyo. Taṃ tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi. Tamahaṃ jānāmi passāmi. So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṃ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti.
Tamañño evamāha: ‘atthi kho, bho, eso attā, yaṃ tvaṃ vadesi, neso natthīti vadāmi; no ca kho, bho, ayaṃ attā ettāvatā sammā samucchinno hoti. Atthi kho, bho, añño attā sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā paṭi­gha­saññā­naṃ atthaṅgamā nānat­ta­saññā­naṃ amanasikārā “ananto ākāso”ti ākāsānañ­cāya­tanūpago. Taṃ tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi. Tamahaṃ jānāmi passāmi. So kho, bho, attā yato kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṃ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti

“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self—divine, having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs, not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.

“To him another says: ‘There is, good sir, such a self as you assert. That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by contemplating) “Space is infinite.” That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
per BB

Ditto for the other formless attainments.

It’s quite apparent that kāya above has a pre-existing literal sense not of a physical body, but of embodiment. This ties in with how the Buddhists adopt that usage for sakkāya. I would find it implausible that only beings with a physical body can be described by sakkāya, as that would imply that formless existences do not fall within the First Noble Truth.

3 Likes