Pīti, sukha, kāya in jhāna: mental, physical, or both?

Essays
34

If you’re just talking about the very last part of the 6ab#1 STED formula, “yava deva brahma loka kayena vasam vatteti”, maybe you have a point.

But elsewhere in the 6ab#1 STED formula, it’s definitely talking about a flesh and blood body made up of four elements that the meditator was born with.

Just as in SN 51.22 after the beginning where he talks about mind made body, the rest of the sutta the buddha is talking about the flesh and blood four elements rupa kaya he was born with which levitates, and which experiences sukha sanna.

I will try to answer your questions from earlier, but first I have to read it some more just to understand it. I am slowly working my way also through Sue Hamitons identity book that you recommended.

As brother yoga-khemi pointed out, it would be really helpful if you could give a plain english description of your position in 3rd jhana kaya, what is the nature of the kaya that contrasts the citta passaddhi in suttas such as SN 46.2 and the gradual training pericope. Because right now, I still have no idea what your position is, because it’s expressed completely in quasi-abhidhammic code. If you could give us a plain english approximation, it would give me something concrete from which I could map the technical mana/citta/vinnana terms and figure out what you’re asking me.

35

In an unfortunate way, I guess I’ll have to dwell a bit longer in this thread; before I split, when things are going to be a bit clearer - so people won’t believe that I said things that I didn’t mean.
As I said, these sectarian talks and scholarships, are too stressful for me. But I have first to make my point clear.

@Sylvester, you ask me why I have elected to remain silent on SN 48.36? - The reason is that this sutta is a sectarian sutta. I won’t even bother reading it again.
No wonder you find contradictions. Those purely sectarian suttas (might they be from the Agamas or the Nikayas) are full of contradiction with the common texts.

Also, I am not going to digress over these petty Arahant and trainees variances.
As far as “kāyena phusitvā viharati” (whatever typology in the Pali/Chinese texts), or the kāyasakkhi, or whatever kāyablaba are concerned, my point is that there is no such thing as kāya, (and ceertainly not mano,) in the higher dimensions; as it is wrongly stated in AN 9.43. Or, as I said earlier, just a quite tiny and inactive amount of kāya - This I have already explained lengthily above, in previous posts.

By the way, you have not answered my point, about the fact that there is “amanasikarā” in AN 9.43 - If just by answering me with another niggling point about ablative and locative.
Amanasikarā means “no mano” to me. Even the sectarian Theravadans seem to admit it; although they still put kāya in the equation!?!?
For me kāya is tightly attached to mano at the micro level - (mano as the kapellmeister of the senses in saḷāyatana).
And no mano = no kāya, in the higher dimensions. There is no more mano, and implicitely no more active kāya, once things (dhammas) have been actualised and realized through the sphere of senses - and the latter dismissed. Or perhaps, just a modicum of kāya left, with no mano at all, once entering the dimension of the infinitude of space.
Mano is a particularity of the saḷāyatana; and as such, with the disappearance of nāmarūpa, (which is the case in the higher dimensions)- there is the disappearance of mano and the all saḷāyatana. SN 35.82 is pretty clear about the disintegration of the mano.

Again I give you my short definition (one paragraph,) of kāya. I will call kāya “bodal”, in reference to “mental” (citta) and “verbal” (vacī):

Kāya is the all encompassing bodal realm. It starts with the forked assāsa/passāsā (assāsapassāsā kho āvuso visākha kāyikā ete dhammā kāyapaṭibaddhā)- (See SN 41.6). Assāsapassāsā is a dhamma - “a made thing” from both breathes - A bodal determination/fabrication, viz. a saṅkhāra (saṃ [together] + karoti [to make]).
So anything that has to do with the physical body is kāya. Even the later “micro” mano that is mental, at the saḷāyatana level, is somewhat kāya. For mano is the “micro-maker” of bodal (and mental) dhammas - the maker of dhammas out of nāmarūpa constituents; (that is to say from feelings, and from the four elements [mahābhūtāna rūpa + upādāya], for the most part). Mano is satta’s “dhamma machine”.
Assāsapassāsā has to do with the physical body, as well as mano has to do with the physical body. They are both from the bodal realm, and for the bodal realm.

That’s my take - from my EBT store.

Note on the side, that the “wise” man builds with mano from assāsapassāsā (yoniso) - or builds (or unbuilds) from what should be the yoniso (origin) of each dhamma.
While the khatha aakhom voodoo clique & c°, play unwisely with the four elements (not truly “yoniso”).
This is the difference between the lower level “religion” of magic (the first religion, said Hegel; the most sophisticated, yet the most inferior and less evolved expression of the spirit - a bound spirit, that can’t even be called spirit says Hegel;) and the higher level of the liberated spirit in the higher dimensions, found in citta1 and the very appeased, almost inexistent kāya. Remember also that the breath, (if for a modicum, for life sake), disappears at the level of the fourth Jhana SN 36.11 (and its numerous parallels) . And breath is the most important kāya of it all. The zygote of the kāya realm womb.
Kāya is the first thing to be attenuated, physically speaking.

I am glad @Sylvester, that you have at last, put some of your own words on that “bodal” stuff.

But we are sadly and definitely disagreeing on what “bodal” means. For me, mano starts with the descent of the senses faculties. How much more “bodily sensual” can that be? How much “grosser” See SN 22.47 (major sutta). ; and the two perfect parallels in SA, of which the readers will find the translations here, or here.
So when you say that manomaya attapaṭilābha, is the subtle (sukhuma) part; and can’t have any possible connection with the physical flesh and blood; I have two contentious points to bring about that. The first is that DN9 remains for me, an uninteresting sutta-(not in my EBT store of well-grounded suttas/sutras). The second point is that it seems that mano (as per the former interesting suttas/sutras,) can’t be more closer to flesh and blood, than when the sense faculties are in action. Body (fifth sense) in action; that’s damn physical! - is’nt it?.

But that’s your take.

For me SN 48.50 's

“As to these things that previously I had only heard about, now I dwell having contacted them with the body and, having pierced them through with wisdom, I see;”

does not necessarily means that it is not of the flesh. And EA 27.10 is not a good reference for me.
My rationale is that you understand a lot by realizing (with the mano,) how dhammas are made up. Because it is mano that makes up the dhammas. This is how “personal” the realization can be. It is the mental realization of the physical process of the physical and mental senses. A mano process.

Mano is a kāya thing; for, although mental in its process, it does involve the physical senses. As SN 22.47 puts it, "there is the descent of the senses faculties (of which body/kāya is a part); then there is mano; then there are dhammas.

‘Asmī’ti kho pana, bhikkhave, avigate pañcannaṃ indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti—cakkhundriyassa sotindriyassa ghānindriyassa jivhindriyassa kāyindriyassa. Atthi, bhikkhave, mano, atthi dhammā, atthi avijjādhātu.
As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti), —of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance (avijjādhātu).

The kapellmeister is between the ajjhattikāni āyatanāni (internal senses,) that have developed their faculties (operative); and the dhammas - That is to say that mano is making phenomena, out of these sensual inputs. Again mano is involved mentally and physically (kāya).

Information having no matter attached to it, it might quite possibly, (at least theoretically,) travel faster than the speed of light, says the late physicists - so serial or parallel; I would not see the difference.
So I really do see that one at a time stuff, as an added unnecessary digression. Lets hope that your readers won’t fall into the trap of that abhidammic endless speculation.

And please, don’t get it bad, but give your readers a break with these “petitio principii”, “Hume’s fork”, and the rest. These are so out of date.
We are not even in the late classical quantum theory of physics anymore. We have entered the quantum theory of “information” (we are in the 21st century). We are into retro-causation, transactional interpretation, and lots of stuff like that today. Stuff that is not pseudoscience anymore, (if for the new Inquisition of the universal brotherhood; who still wants the general public to paradoxically believe so; while still doing their little voodoo stuff in an occult way).
By the way, this “information” side of quantum physics is pretty relevant to the macro representation of paṭiccasamuppāda (with its vitiated viññāṇa/nāmarūpa relationship, not to be overshadowed). And gee, they are far from “petitio principii” et al. Indeed, petitio IS the new rule, it seems.

I hope I have made it clear enough, so as not to have to come back on the subject.
For me, my position is clear - and so is yours.

Mudita.

36

Thanks Rob for taking the time to explain your thoughts.

Actually, amanasikarā always appears not as a complete clause in itself, but in a relationship to another substantive noun within a clause. Since it’s not an independent clause but part of a relationship between substantives , amanasikarā is not asserting that there is no mano, but that is no attention to perceptions of diversity. It does not mean that there is no manasikara to perception of non-diversity. Mano persists in the formless attainments.

I pressed you on SN 48.36, anticipating that very response you just gave. Sutta Central is a work in progress, and may well consume lifetimes; it is still at the stage of locating parallels and not yet equipped to locate sentence parallels in unrelated discourses. Although SC does not yet list any parallels to the suttas on the 5 Indriyas in SN 48, the Agama attestations in secondary materials can be found in Kuan Fu Tse’s work. I even found a partial parallel in the SA a few days ago. In light of this, surely it passes the rigours of your EBT yardstick?

As for rejecting DN 9 as sectarian, its Dharmaguptaka parallel seems to be in agreement with the Pali. How could that be sectarian? What if Hartmann finalises releases the Sarvastivadin redaction and it also agrees?

Be well.

37

Hi Frank

If I may trouble you to look at my posts in the thread we hijacked from Gabriel, you’ll find all my ruminations there.

As a summary -

  1. the Third Jhana pericope means experiencing pleasure personally/directly

  2. body tranquillity and mental tranquillity relates directly to MN 36’s body development and mental development as sense restraint.[quote=“frankk, post:34, topic:4096”]
    But elsewhere in the 6ab#1 STED formula, it’s definitely talking about a flesh and blood body made up of four elements that the meditator was born with.
    [/quote]

Could you explain? I don’t understand the abbreviations.

38

@Sylvester, your personal grammatical interpretation of manasi-kara is yours. No problem with that. Each one its own interpretations - each one its own kamma. However, it is not grammar that is at stake here, but MEANING.
So, please see as follows, how I would translate the Pali in SN 9.11 for instance (from Bodhi’s translation):
“Ayoniso manasikārā,
so vitakkehi khajjasi;
Ayoniso paṭinissajja,
yoniso anucintaya.

"Because of producing with your mind, not from the origin (cause),
You, sir, are eaten by your thoughts.
Having relinquished the “not causal way”,
You should reflect causally.

This is Bodhi’s original translation:
"Because of attending carelessly,
You, sir, are eaten by your thoughts.
Having relinquished the careless way,
You should reflect carefully.

It makes quite a difference, doesn’t it? - even if “attention” is present in both translation. Underlying (implicit) in the former - and as a primary meaning in Bodhi’s one (explicit).
Kara - from the sanskrit kṛ - has a wide range that goes from the simple use of mano (intellect) as a mere reflective process, to a full productive process.
Manasi - the locative of the Sanskrit manas have these undertakings done inside the mano.
And manas is not a late concept; for it appears in the Ṛg Veda.

So I don’t know if my grammar is perfectly right; for I don’t pretend to be neither a translator, nor a grammarian. But as far as the meaning of manasikara is concerned, I personally think that this is much closer to the real meaning of “producing with the mind/mano” that manasi-kara conveys in Sanskrit; than the secondary meaning of “attention” regularly translated by the Pali scholars.
Might the grammar be of the most accurate nature; how good is it, if the meaning is not there?

For those who would wonder what a real “producing with the mind” means. Then read SN 54.13 (ānāpānasati), and ponder on how a breath, when worked through (in) the mano (“manasikarized”,) produces a feeling. Then infer the rest of the ānāpānasati processes.
Indeed, I got into this forum to talk about ānāpānasati, and got carried away. Sorry.

As for the Chinese Agamas, I don’t quite see the interest of reading fluently Chinese as a westerner.
I have already made my point about this issue. It has no more value to me than reading a Pali translation by Bodhi or Piya Tan.
To know how Guṇabhadra translated manasikara (from Sanskrit to Chinese), has the same relative value that I pay, to how Thanissaro or Bodhi did translate the Pali in English.

I think it would be better that people like Mun-keat Choong have the Sutra-Aṅga totally translated, for instance.
Also I think a Chinese (from Malaysia like Cheong I believe; or wherever), living in a Anglo country, is far better suited to translate the Chinese into English, than another absurd western scholar, with a western mind.

I highly respect Choong’s work. He is maybe even the only guy that I really respect out there, in the world of Buddhism. That is why I said previously in an above post, that we should, not only consider the SA parallels, but work mostly on the Sutra-Aṅga. This is the job he did in his books. Unfortunately, he stopped the good work of devoting himself to the all Sutra-Aṇga.
Personally, I can have a vague idea of what is in the Agamas; when comparing both SN/SA. But it would be a blessing, if he could translate the all corpus of the core doctrinal part of the Saṃyuktāgama.
Thanks to him for instance, it is in one of his books, that I realized that SA does not include manasikara and contact in nāmarūpa. A major point that I made known in another post. This would make it a major contradiction between both schools - Although it could also explain the macro & micro approach.

This scholar is obviously underated by the ludicrous (westernized) “scholarship” Establishment. He is way above anyone out there, in his methodology and approach. I just can’t find a single objection to his simple, unsectarian, and straightforward work.
Absolutely spotless methodology.

We are all definitely waiting for such a job of comparing thoroughly the sutta/sutras, in what Choong calls, the core doctrinal part of the Texts; namely the early SA/SN and particularly the Sutra-Aṅga part.
Starting with that would be a definite boon.
But I don’t think that this would fit the “universal” agenda of the pathetic “Establishment” clique; lead by the not less pathetic western world.

However, the gist of Buddhism should not be found in comparing the Chinese translations with the original texts - but in the original texts themselves.
Therefore, the idea is not to compare meanings between the Pali and the Chinese. But to know what is common between both the Agamas and the Nikayas. That is it.
Then, the real work is to turn back to the Pali, and to extract the essence of the meaning of a Pali word (contextually,) from the Sanskrit also. And the ultimate thing would be to equate the historical Sanskrit meaning, with the historical Buddha’s “Pali”.
This is more important than grammar, or comparison between Chinese and Pali, or whatever.
First MEANING; then the rest
"What the point of being savant in the ancillary angas, if you don’t understand the Vedas" would have said a Brahmin in the times of Buddha (even a Pāṇini freak, I suppose).
Manas is one of these essential Sanskrit words.

That’s all folks, I say.
Everything settled for me!

Farewell & mudita.

Nothing beats a good breath - Practice it folks; to the core - And then you’ll know (by your-self).
Buddhism is not a picnic (if for the “homelesses” in posh temples). It’s not for the fainted at heart.

39

I’ve read all of your posts at least once, and I didn’t understand. Partially that’s my fault since I don’t have your Pali expertise and research into specific nuances of citta mano kaya rupa etc.

But what I’m asking for is a plain english explanation of what you think your summary above means expressed in terms of anatomical body, metaphorical body, mind mind body, etc.

For example, for the kaya-passaddhi that is contrasted with citta-passaddhi in SN 46.2, and in the samadhi gradual training pericope, what is the body exactly? A flesh and blood body made of 4 elements that includes mind, or a mind only body that includes anatomical body?

Similarly with 3rd jhana, I truly have no idea what you think the kaya is, in ordinary language. Exactly “what” is it that “personally experiences”? anatomical body, mind made body, mind only, all three?

40

Synopsis of SN 51.22 ayoguḷa-suttaṃ

This discourse explains the method for one of the ways levitation can be done, as referenced in STED 6ab #1, supernormal powers. Ananda is astounded that the Buddha can not only travel to the brahma world with a mind made body, but also with the anatomical body made up of 4 elements as well. It should be pointed out this power is not exclusive to samma sam buddhas. It’s STED 6ab #1, any disciple with strong samadhi can do it with practice, not just Buddhas and his more famous disciples like Maha-moggallana. See biography of Dipa ma for a recent example. In Ajahn Mun’s biography, there are many such types of displays of power, an example of levitation is found within the very beginning of the book.

SN 51.22 ayoguḷa-suttaṃ
SN 51.22 ayoguḷa-suttaṃ
SN 51.22 iron-ball-discourse

sāvatthi-nidānaṃ.
(At) sāvatthi-(this)-originates.
atha kho āyasmā ānando
Then *** Venerable Ānanda
yena bhagavā ten-upasaṅkami;
approached the-Blessed-One,
upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṃ
having-approached the-Blessed-One,
abhi-vādetvā
paid-homage (to him),
ekamantaṃ nisīdi.
(on)-one-side (he) sat-down.
ekamantaṃ nisinno kho
(on)-one-side having-sat-down ***,
āyasmā ānando bhagavantaṃ etad-avoca —
Venerable Ānanda (to) the-Blessed-One {said}-this -

(can mind made body travel to brahma world?)
“abhi-jānāti nu kho, bhante,
"[by means of] direct-experience, Lord,
bhagavā iddhiyā
(has) the-Blessed-One (using) [spiritual]-power
mano-mayena kāyena
(with a) mind-made body
brahma-lokaṃ upasaṅkamitā”ti?
{traveled to the} brahma-world?

“abhi-jānāmi khv-āhaṃ, ānanda,
“(through) {my own} direct-experience, Ānanda,
iddhiyā mano-mayena kāyena
(using) [spiritual]-power (of a) mind-made body,
brahma-lokaṃ upasaṅkamitā”ti.
(to the) brahma-world (I’ve) traveled.”

(can anatomical body travel to brahma world?)
“abhijānāti pana, bhante,
"{What about,} direct-experience, Lord,
bhagavā iminā cātu-mahā-bhūtikena
******* (of) these four-great-elements
kāyena iddhiyā
[making up the] body, (with) spiritual-power
brahma-lokaṃ upasaṅkamitā”ti?
[have you] {traveled to the} brahma-world?

“abhijānāmi khvāhaṃ, ānanda,
“(through) {my own} direct-experience, Ānanda,
iminā cātu-mahā-bhūtikena
(with) these four-great-elements
kāyena iddhiyā
[making up the] body, (with) spiritual-power
brahma-lokaṃ upasaṅkamitā”ti.
(to the) brahma-world (I’ve) traveled.”

:diamonds: “yañca kho, omāti, bhante,
“That indeed, *****, ******,
bhagavā iddhiyā
the-Blessed-One (with) spiritual-power
mano-mayena kāyena
(with) mind-made body [is able to]
brahmalokaṃ upasaṅkamituṃ,
{travel to the} brahma-world,
yañca kho abhijānāti, bhante,
that indeed with-direct-experience, ******,
bhagavā iminā cātu-mahā-bhūtikena
the-Blessed-One (with) these four-great-elements
kāyena iddhiyā
[comprising the] body, (with) spiritual-power
brahmalokaṃ upasaṅkamitā,
(to the) brahma-world (he can) travel (to),
tayidaṃ, bhante,
This is, ******,
bhagavato acchariyañceva abbhutañcā”ti.
********* wonderful (and) marvelous!”

“acchariyā ceva, ānanda, tathāgatā
"{Ānanda,} Wonderful are, *******, (the) Tathāgatas,
acchariya-dhamma-samannāgatā ca,
(and) wonderful-qualities-(they)-possess **,
abbhutā ceva, ānanda, tathāgatā
(and) marvelous are, *******, (the) Tathāgatas,
abbhuta-dhamma-samannāgatā ca”.
(and) marvelous-qualities-(they)-possess **,

:diamonds: “yasmiṃ, ānanda,
“******, *******,
samaye tathāgato
when (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyampi citte samodahati
body {is immersed} in-the-mind,
cittampi kāye samodahati,
(and) mind {is immersed} in-the-body,
sukha-saññañca
pleasurable-perceptions
lahu-saññañca kāye
(and) light-weight-perceptions (in regard to the) body
okkamitvā viharati;
(he has) entered (and) dwells (in);
tasmiṃ, ānanda,
******, *******,
samaye tathāgatassa
(on that) occasion (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyo lahutaro ceva hoti
body {becomes} light-weight indeed ****,
mudutaro ca kammaniyataro ca
malleable and wieldy,
pabhassarataro ca.
and luminous.

(simile of iron ball)
:diamonds: “seyyathāpi, ānanda, ayoguḷo
“Just as, ******, an iron ball,
divasaṃ santatto
all-day heated
lahutaro ceva hoti
light-weight it becomes,
mudutaro ca kammaniyataro ca
malleable and wieldy,
pabhassarataro ca;
and luminous;

(re-iteration that follows similes)
evameva kho, ānanda,
like-that also, *******,
yasmiṃ samaye tathāgato
****** when (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyampi citte samodahati,
body {is immersed} in-the-mind,
cittampi kāye samodahati,
(and) mind {is immersed} in-the-body,
sukha-saññañca
pleasurable-perceptions
lahu-saññañca kāye
(and) light-weight-perceptions (in regard to the) body
okkamitvā viharati;
(he has) entered (and) dwells (in);
tasmiṃ, ānanda,
******, *******,
samaye tathāgatassa
(on that) occasion (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyo lahutaro ceva hoti
body {becomes} light-weight indeed ****,
mudutaro ca kammaniyataro ca
malleable and wieldy,
pabhassarataro ca.
and luminous.

(same perception leads to levitation)
:diamonds: “yasmiṃ, ānanda,
"******, ******,
samaye tathāgato
when (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyampi citte samodahati,
body {is immersed} in-the-mind,
cittampi kāye samodahati,
(and) mind {is immersed} in-the-body,
sukha-saññañca
pleasurable-perceptions
lahu-saññañca kāye
(and) light-weight-perceptions (in regard to the) body
okkamitvā viharati;
(he has) entered (and) dwells (in);
tasmiṃ, ānanda,
******, *******,
samaye tathāgatassa
(on that) occasion (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyo appa-kasiren-eva
body (with) very-little-difficulty
pathaviyā vehāsaṃ abbhuggacchati,
(from the) earth (to the) sky (he) rises-up.

(STED 6ab #1: supernormal powers)
so an-eka-vihitaṃ
He {experiences} many-types
iddhi-vidhaṃ pacc-anu-bhoti —
(of) various-[spiritual]-powers *** ** ****-
eko-pi hutvā bahudhā hoti,
one (he) has-been, many (he) becomes,
bahudhā-pi hutvā eko hoti …
many (he) has-been, one (he) becomes …
pe …
…
yāva brahma-lokāpi
as-far-as (the) brahma-world
kāyena vasaṃ vatteti.
(with his) body, mastery (he) exercises.

(simile of cotton lifted by wind)
:diamonds: “seyyathāpi, ānanda,
"Just-as, Ānanda,
tūla-picu vā kappāsa-picu vā
cotton-wool or kapok-cotton **
lahuko vāt-ūpādāno
(being) light-weight, wind-sustained,
appa-kasiren-eva
(with) very-little-difficulty
pathaviyā vehāsaṃ abbhuggacchati;
(from the) earth (to the) sky (it) rises-up.
(reiteration that follows similes)
evameva kho, ānanda,
just-like that, Ānanda,
yasmiṃ samaye tathāgato
****** when (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyampi citte samodahati,
body {is immersed} in-the-mind,
cittampi kāye samodahati,
(and) mind {is immersed} in-the-body,
sukha-saññañca
pleasurable-perceptions
lahu-saññañca kāye
(and) light-weight-perceptions (in regard to the) body
okkamitvā viharati;
(he has) entered (and) dwells (in);
tasmiṃ, ānanda,
******, *******,
samaye tathāgatassa
(on that) occasion (the) Tathāgata’s
kāyo appakasireneva
body (with) very-little-difficulty
pathaviyā vehāsaṃ abbhuggacchati,
(from the) earth (to the) sky (he) rises-up.

so an-eka-vihitaṃ
He {experiences} many-types
iddhi-vidhaṃ pacc-anu-bhoti —
(of) various-[spiritual]-powers *** ** ****-
eko-pi hutvā bahudhā hoti,
one (he) has-been, many (he) becomes,
bahudhā-pi hutvā eko hoti …
many (he) has-been, one (he) becomes …
pe …
…
yāva brahma-lokāpi
as-far-as (the) brahma-world
kāyena vasaṃ vatteti.
(with his) body, mastery (he) exercises.
”ti.

(end of sutta)

standard definition for the first of the six abhinna:
STED (6ab)

  1. aneka-vihitaṃ iddhi-vidhaṃ
    aneka-vihitaṃ iddhi-vidhaṃ pacc-anu-bhoti –
    many-kinds (of) {manifold}-[supernormal]-power (he) experiences -
    ekopi hutvā bahudhā hoti,
    one (he) was, many (he) becomes,
    bahudhāpi hutvā eko hoti;
    many (he) was, one (he) becomes;
    āvi-bhāvaṃ, tiro-bhāvaṃ;
    (he) appears, (he) disappears;
    tiro-kuṭṭaṃ tiro-pākāraṃ tiro-pabbataṃ
    through-walls, through-ramparts, through-mountains,
    asajjamāno gacchati,
    unimpeded (he) goes,
    seyyathāpi ākāse;
    as-if (through) space;
    pathaviyāpi ummujja-nimujjaṃ karoti,
    (the) earth; emerging-from-(and)-diving-into (he) does,
    seyyathāpi udake;
    as-if (from) water.
    udakepi abhijjamāne gacchati,
    (on) water, not-sinking (he) goes-(across).
    seyyathāpi pathaviyaṃ;
    as-if (on) land.
    ākāsepi pallaṅkena kamati,
    (through) space (in) cross-leg-seating-posture (he) goes.
    seyyathāpi pakkhī sakuṇo;
    like (a) winged bird.
    imepi candima-sūriye
    the moon-(and)-sun,
    evaṃ-mahiddhike evaṃ-mahānubhāve
    so-mighty, so-powerful,
    pāṇinā parimasati parimajjati;
    (with his) hand (he) touches (and) strokes.
    yāva brahma-lokā-pi
    as-far-as (the) brahma-world-**
    kāyena vasaṃ vatteti.
    (his) body control (is) exercised.
2 Likes
41

Thanks Frank! Let me get back to you next week, when I’m done with my silliness in chasing chickens around a hamlet overseas. As you can probably guess, I’m on a phone.

42

OK Frank.

Let me try to address the simpler issue of the 2 types of “bodies” that you see in SN 51.22. I presume you are saying that there is the mind-made body in Ven Ananda’s first question, and there is the flesh-&-blood body in Ven Ananda’s second question?

Despite the presence of the pronoun looking suspiciously anaphoric, I will agree that the 2nd body being referred to is the flesh-&-blood body.

But, does this support your assertion that the “body” in the jhana pericopes is the body with which one exercises the supernormal powers? I would say no, and in fact, one cannot infer either that the mind-made body is even the subject of what happens during a jhana. Neither body is the body in these pericopes, eg -

He drenches, steeps, saturates, and suffuses his body with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body which is not suffused by this rapture and happiness.

The important thing to note about the mind-made body and the flesh-&-blood body in the abhiñña is how they are framed in the texts. Look very carefully at the formula, for which I will use the manomaya kāya pericope for convenience -

_So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe viga­tū­pak­kilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte manomayaṃ kāyaṃ abhinimmānāya cittaṃ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti. So imamhā kāyā aññaṃ kāyaṃ abhinimmināti rūpiṃ manomayaṃ sabbaṅ­gapaccaṅ­giṃ ahīnindriyaṃ

When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties. (per BB)

The first sentence consists of a subordinate clause bolded in front (samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe viga­tū­pak­kilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte) , followed by the main clause about the excercise of psychic powers.

Now, what type of syntactic construct is the subordinate clause? It’s your good old locative absolute. And notice that this particular locative absolute is composed of past participles, not present participles. What do the grammars say about the temporal relationshionship between -

  1. a subordinate clause made up of a locative absolute formed with past participles; and
  2. the main clause?

Very simply, if one elects not to translate the passage into readable idiomatic English as BB has chosen, the grammars would say that the events in the main clause take place after the events in the subordinate clause. This gives -

After his mind has been concentrated, made pure and bright, made free of blemish and defects, made malleable, wieldy and steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body.

Am I being a Grammar Nazi here? This plain old grammatical consequence is substantiated by another sutta that does not use the locative absolute formulation. It’s AN 9.35, but I would caution against Ven Thanissaro’s erroneous translation of a key passage. If you have BB’s translation, well and good. If not, I am correcting his translation to show what he missed out in the Pali -

Tassa evaṃ hoti: ‘yannūnāhaṃ sabbaso neva­saññā­nā­sañ­ñāyata­naṃ samatikkamma saññā­ve­dayi­ta­nirodhaṃ upasampajja vihareyyan’ti. So saññā­ve­dayi­ta­nirodhaṃ anabhi­hiṃsa­māno sabbaso neva­saññā­nā­sañ­ñāyata­naṃ samatikkamma saññā­ve­dayi­ta­nirodhaṃ upasampajja viharati.
> Yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ tadeva samāpattiṃ samāpajjatipi vuṭṭhātipi, tassa mudu cittaṃ hoti kammaññaṃ. Mudunā kammaññena cittena appamāṇo samādhi hoti subhāvito. So appamāṇena samādhinā subhāvitena yassa yassa abhiñ­ñā­sacchi­karaṇī­yassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiñ­ñā­sacchi­kiriyāyatatra tatreva sak­khi­bhabba­taṃ pāpuṇāti sati sati āyatane.

The thought occurs to him, ‘What if I, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, were to enter & remain in the cessation of perception & feeling.’ Without jumping at the cessation of perception & feeling, he, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling.
When a monk enters & emerges from this or that very attainment, his mind is pliant & malleable. With his pliant, malleable mind, limitless concentration is well developed. With his concentration well developed & limitless, then whichever of the six higher knowledges he turns his mind to know & realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there is an opening.

Here, you cannot get any more explicit. This confirms the grammatical reading of the abhiñña pericopes, ie the abhiñña are exercised after arising from the jhanas.

Now that being the case, since we cannot even equate the mind-made body with the “body” mentioned in the 4 jhana similes, what possibility do we have to even equate the flesh-&-blood body with that “body” in the jhana similes?

Let me try to offer my thoughts on your other issue about kāya in SN 46.2. But first -

Question 6 - Do you agree that SN 46.2’s 2 passadhi’s is connected to sense restraint? If not, what do you say is its role or roles?

PS - above, I had for the sake of argument agreed that the “body” which pops into the Brahma world is the flesh-&-blood body. This is in fact BB’s opinion. I am actually not persuaded that this is correct.

Elsewhere, if we pop into the abhiñña pericopes, we find that these forms of supernormal powers are part of the 2nd abhiñña pericope. It’s undeniable how SN 51.22’s second “body” is the same as the body in the 2nd abhiñña pericope.

So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe viga­tū­pak­kilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte iddhividhāya cittaṃ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti. So anekavihitaṃ iddhividhaṃ paccanubhoti– ekopi hutvā bahudhā hoti, bahudhāpi hutvā eko hoti; āvibhāvaṃ tirobhāvaṃ tirokuṭṭaṃ tiropākāraṃ tiropabbataṃ asajjamāno gacchati seyyathāpi ākāse; pathaviyāpi ummuj­jani­mujjaṃ karoti seyyathāpi udake; udakepi abhijjamāne gacchati seyyathāpi pathaviyā; ākāsepi pallaṅkena kamati seyyathāpi pakkhī sakuṇo; imepi candimasūriye evaṃmahiddhike evaṃma­hānu­bhāve pāṇinā parāmasati parimajjati; yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṃ vatteti. (2nd abhiñña pericope)

Yasmiṃ, ānanda, samaye tathāgato kāyampi citte samodahati, cittampi kāye samodahati, sukhasaññañca lahusaññañca kāye okkamitvā viharati; tasmiṃ, ānanda, samaye tathāgatassa kāyo appakasireneva pathaviyā vehāsaṃ abbhuggacchati, so anekavihitaṃ iddhividhaṃ paccanubhoti— ekopi hutvā bahudhā hoti, bahudhāpi hutvā eko hoti; āvibhāvaṃ tirobhāvaṃ tirokuṭṭaṃ tiropākāraṃ tiropabbataṃ asajjamāno gacchati seyyathāpi ākāse; pathaviyāpi ummuj­jani­mujjaṃ karoti seyyathāpi udake; udakepi abhijjamāne gacchati seyyathāpi pathaviyā; ākāsepi pallaṅkena kamati seyyathāpi pakkhī sakuṇo; imepi candimasūriye evaṃmahiddhike evaṃma­hānu­bhāve pāṇinā parāmasati parimajjati; yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṃ vatteti. (SN 51.22)

This is where I think BB is wrong to equate the 2nd “body” in SN 51.22 with the “natural physical body” (fn 275 on that sutta). If we look carefully at the abhiñña pericopes, the first abhiñña is framed like this -

So evaṃ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe viga­tū­pak­kilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte manomayaṃ kāyaṃ abhinimmānāya cittaṃ abhinīharati abhininnāmeti. So imamhā kāyā aññaṃ kāyaṃ abhinimmināti rūpiṃ manomayaṃ sabbaṅ­gapaccaṅ­giṃ ahīnindriyaṃ.

When his mind is thus concentrated, pure and bright, unblemished, free from defects, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not lacking any faculties.

The first abhiñña pericope actually has 2 “bodies” discussed therein. The first is the mind-made “body”, from which the other “body” is drawn out, like a reed from its sheath, sword from scabbard or snake from slough.

As we know from DN 9, the mind-made body is just a synonym for the mind-made acquisition of self. The first abhiñña pericope is therefore not even talking about a “body” in the English sense of a corporeal body, but simply conventional selfhood.

Notice also, that the 2nd “body” in the first abhiñña pericope is actually given without the “feeding on food” qualifier, which eliminates the flesh-&-blood body. This, I believe, would be the way to reconcile the 2 “bodies” in SN 51.22. The first is the mind-made “body”, the second is the “body” drawn out of the mind-made “body”.

43

Hi Frank

I’ve given consideration to your request very carefully. What drove me to elect for a Q&A method in this thread was the obvious failure of my earlier vibhaṅga method. I think it would be more fruitful if we continue with the Q&A, as what I think the kāya means in -

  1. kāyo passambhati (his body becomes tranquil : pre-jhana pericope)
  2. kāyapassaddhi, cittapassaddhi (as the components of passad­dhi­sam­boj­jhaṅ­ga)

will become obvious. They are pointing to one common denominator, namely the development of the body and the development of the mind in MN 36 -

Kathañca, aggivessana, bhāvitakāyo ca hoti bhāvitacitto ca? Idha, aggivessana, sutavato ariyasāvakassa uppajjati sukhā vedanā. So sukhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na sukhasārāgī ca hoti, na sukha­sārā­gitañca āpajjati. Tassa sā sukhā vedanā nirujjhati. Sukhāya vedanāya nirodhā uppajjati dukkhā vedanā. So dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na socati na kilamati na paridevati na urattāḷiṃ kandati na sammohaṃ āpajjati. Tassa kho esā, aggivessana, uppannāpi sukhā vedanā cittaṃ na pariyādāya tiṭṭhati bhāvitattā kāyassa, uppannāpi dukkhā vedanā cittaṃ na pariyādāya tiṭṭhati bhāvitattā cittassa. Yassa kassaci, aggivessana, evaṃ ubhatopakkhaṃ uppannāpi sukhā vedanā cittaṃ na pariyādāya tiṭṭhati bhāvitattā kāyassa, uppannāpi dukkhā vedanā cittaṃ na pariyādāya tiṭṭhati bhāvitattā cittassa. Evaṃ kho, aggivessana, bhāvitakāyo ca hoti bhāvitacitto cā”ti.

And how, Aggivessana, is one developed in body and developed in mind? Here, Aggivessana, pleasant feeling arises in a well-taught noble disciple. Touched by that pleasant feeling, he does not lust after pleasure or continue to lust after pleasure. That pleasant feeling of his ceases. With the cessation of the pleasant feeling, painful feeling arises. Touched by that painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, and lament, he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. When that pleasant feeling has arisen in him, it does not invade his mind and remain because body is developed. And when that painful feeling has arisen in him, it does not invade his mind and remain because mind is developed. Anyone in whom, in this double manner, arisen pleasant feeling does not invade his mind and remain because body is developed, and arisen painful feeling does not invade his mind and remain because mind is developed, is thus developed in body and developed in mind.

Please consider also the passage which precedes this, where the Buddha unequivocally rejects the theory that kāyabhāvana has anything to do with the physical body -

But there are some recluses and brahmins who abide pursuing development of mind, but not development of body. They are touched by mental painful feeling. In the past, when one was touched by mental painful feeling, one’s thighs would become rigid, one’s heart would burst, hot blood would gush from one’s mouth, and one would go mad, go out of one’s mind. So then the body was subservient to the mind, the mind wielded mastery over it. Why is that? Because the body was not developed. (Saccaka’s theory)

Can you see where I’m coming from regarding this business of the kāya in the jhana pericopes? In MN 36, being “developed in body” (bhāvitakāya) is explained in a purely emotional framework of not responding with lust towards pleasurable feeling. Isn’t this good old sense restraint? What kāya is it that needs to be trained and tranquilised so as to curtail the latent tendency to lust following a pleasant feeling?

44

Before pulling in other suttas and adding more moving parts into the discussion, I want to point out my original post, based on SN 51.22 translated in full pali and english a few msgs’s up on this thread, that after the buddha says he can travel with a mind made body to the brahma world, the rest of the sutta is talking about him traveling to the brahma world, and levitating with the flesh and blood body made of four elements that he was born with. And it explicitly talks about the 6ab STED #1 (first of the 6 abhinna for supernormal powers standard EBT definition, incuded in the same post above with SN 51.22).

In other words the 6ab STED #1 if not exclusively talking about an anatomical body traveling to the brahma world, levitating, walking on water, flying through the air like a winged bird, etc, must at least include it (anatomical body) as one of the options.

Now the reason I went through the trouble to look through SN 51.22 carefully word by word in pali, is because it talks about kaya, citta, sukha, things we’re very interested in for the jhanas.

It’s really hard to try to link back to my original post on SN 51.22 while compsosing a msg. to add to the same thread. I don’t want to repeat myself, so I’ll just reiterate the main point:

In STED 6ab #1 (supernormal powers), kaaya only appears once in it explicitly, at the end:

“yava brahma loka pi kayena vasam vetteti”,
“as far as the brahma worlds also (he) with-his-body exercises mastery [of supernormal powers]”

the anatomical body is implicit through unstated pronouns for “avi bhava, tiro bhava, …, pallankena kamati, seyyathapi pakkhi sakuno” walking on water, flying through air in seated posture, walking through mountains like it’s spaace, diving into the earth like its water, etc…

So without looking at a grammar look, it looks like the kayena at the end of the formula, must include an anatomical body made of four elements, whatever else or whatever the precise grammatical case you want to use.

And since it looks it might be the same grammatical case as the 3rd jhana formula’s kayena, grammar isn’t going to save the day for the no-anatomical body camp.

I also pointed out the the process of levitation involves putting mind in body and body in mind, attending to the perception of light-weightedness and bliss (sukha). So you have a straightforward mind-body dichotomy in use here (kaaya/citta), and sukha clearly referring to anatomical body.

Now someone might want to say, well, he had to exit jhana before exercising this supernormal power. Ok, let’s say he did. But is it not samadhi?

If you refer to the very beginning of Ajahn Mun’s biography, it talks about a monk levitating (free pdf available, you can google it). Now the first time it happened to him, he was in the kuti, got startled to see he was up in the air and fell down. He had to practice how to balance his samadhi to maintain levitation and be aware of his surroundings and presumably think as well. Is this not an act of very strong samadhi?

So my point was, if someone has the samadhi to do levitate, which involves perceptions of light-weightedness and bliss (sukha) in the anatomical body, is it so hard to believe 3rd jhana also can have perceptions of sukha /pleasure in the anatomical body?

1 Like
45

Hi again Frank.

I’m sorry you felt that you had to repeat yourself. For argument’s sake, I did indicate that I was prepared to treat SN 56.11’s second “body” as the flesh-&-blood body.

Moving on -

I took pains to point out that in the suttas, when it is intended to refer to the normal physical body, a different description is used. These could be -

This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, & dispersion.
or
A gross self, possessed of form, made up of the four great elements, feeding on physical food.
or
Possessed of form, made up of the four great elements, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self.

But in SN 51.22, the second body is described quite differently -

­_cātuma­hā­bhū­tika kāya_
body composed of the four great elements

Where’s the bit about porridge or food to qualify this as the normal physical body? I will grant that this is not a particularly strong point, except in contexts involving the 3 different types of “selfhood”.

I think this is not correct, since it also appears earlier in the mind-made body section as well -

Abhijānāmi khvāhaṃ, ānanda, iddhiyā manomayena kāyena brahmalokaṃ upasaṅkamitā.

I recall, Ananda, having gone to the brahma world by spiritual power with a mind-made body.

Since your original premise that the kāya appears only once is wrong, how will you now argue that kāyena relates only to the second body and not the first body which is mind-made?

Even if the sutta did not contain any mention of the mind-made body, demanding that kāyena must refer to the physical body requires a particular Pali idiom, ie anaphora. That sentence would have had to have been cast as -

yāva brahmalokāpi tena kāyena vasaṃ vatteti

Without the anaphoric pronoun ta, there is simply no way for this kāya to be read as if it were a substantive noun, instead of an adverb.

From the looks of it, you may just confirmed the no-anatomical body camp’s thesis, unless you work around the 1st kāya problem, as well as the absent anaphora problem.

Yes, it is still samādhi. But, since he’s already re-entered and re-contacted kāmasaññā, the sukha in this experience does not necessarily equate the sukha of the 3 jhanas; there will be a mixture of sukha born of the 5 senses, and the sukha born of mind-contact. Bearing in mind that in the Nikayas and Agamas, samādhi is a very large menagerie of states that include non-jhanic conditions, is it safe to even assume that the levitator is doing all that within a jhana? You still cannot get around the problem I outlined in my post above, ie the locative absolute with past participles problem, and the AN 9.35 problem. Both of these clearly indicate that psychic powers are not exercised while one is within a jhana.

Well, the anatomical body contacts tactility. Sight, sounds, smells, tastes and tactility are defined as the kāmā. Doesn’t the First Jhana pericope state -

vivicceva kāmehi
having been quite separated from the kāmā

If this is not to your satisfaction, let’s discuss AN 9.36.

Frank, I’m not at all keen to discuss the Thai ajahns. But if you wish to cite them and their teachings here, surely you must be prepared that where we notice that the suttas contradict them, it needs to be pointed out. I’m loathe to do this in a resource that is dedicated to textual study, but I personally feel that SC is not the correct platform for affirmation.

46

We already discussed this in another thread, and we reached a point where we have to agree to disagree. Quick summary:

You said Thanissaro’s kamehi translation as “sensuality” is based on only one sutta and that is proto-abhidhamma. I said fine, let’s use your translation. You translated something like:

"quite secluded from sensual objects "

And I said, one can be secluded from sensual objects without completely having 5 sensory perceptions cut off. The other point is that what pops out to me is “sensual”. One could be cut off from 5 senses as in Vism. and Ajahn Brahm’s jhana, but it still doesn’t satisfy the main criteria of seclusion of sensual-pleasure in relation to those sensual objects. You always see 5 cords of sense pleasure and 5 hindrances in passages immedidately preceding first jhana pericope. Also, everything in buddhism has to answer to 2nd noble truth. Cause of dukkha, kāma-tanha, bhava-tanha, vibhava-tanha.

So you can try to milk the eva particle in first jhana formula for all its worth, but it still has to answer to 2nd noble truth and 5 cords of sensual pleasure.

47

I am seeing this as the first post in this thread. And it is in the essays section. But I can see no essay. Has it been moved? I am assuming the essay was originally the first post in this thread…? Thanks!

48

Have you got a link to that poll? Sounds interesting.

49

Where are you getting the translation from? I would be interested in the context, but I don’t see any translatoin here on Suttacentral for this text.

50

Oh dear! If worldwide Buddhism has only produced one respectable person, it would not appear to be functioning very well! Or, perhaps there is an unusual criterion for respectability at work?

51

I just checked the first post (which I authored), there was no essay ever written as far as I can tell, I had intended it to become a wiki article.

There should be another thread somewhere that has a long collection of EBT references (pali and agama) to kāya in jhana and 16 APS (anapana) contexts.

At some point I’ll share my notes on this, with detailed pali/english audits. But it’s good for you and others to do your research independently and see if you come to similar to different conclusions.

Here is a new one I found recently:

1 Like
52

Ah I see. I guess I got muddled because of the wiki reference, and because this is in the essays section!

Great!

Yeah I’m doing research on this. My sense is that it really is referencing the body, and I think we might be able to say specifically in relation to the psycho-psysiological phenomena we call ‘affect’ in psychology.

53

How the body is viewed in the West: http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/5701/7/07_chapter%201.pdf

I feel there is less of a dichotomy when viewed with insight, between body and mind. Ie it’s not a travesty to have body in a spiritual place. I’m just throwing something out there.

With metta