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

not yet, but i’m working on it. thanks for the explanation though!

so standard 3rd jhana formula, experiencing sukha with kaaya would include the anatomical body. and kaaya-passaddhi as a nutriment for passaddhi-sambojjhanga (SN 46.2) also includes anatomical body as you summarize above, correct?

Greetings frankk,

I would guess so.

I suppose that the pericope “Atthi, bhikkhave, kāyapassaddhi, cittapassaddhi”, means that you have to calm both the kāya [carnal part & mental part (mano)], plus the purely citta part, that has merely to do with feelings & perceptions.
In other words,

  1. Kāya is the purely physical (carnal) + the mental part, that is the kapellmeister (mano) - the coordinator of the senses.
  2. Citta, as per definition in MN44/SN 41.6, is what is concerned with feeling & perception (external & internal (clinging)).

Both mano + citta come, I would say, under the denomination of cetasika (the mental part of the phenomena). Cetasika is what I also call the “micro” citta, or citta II - viz. the debased citta, by the addition of the the mental factor that is mano.
The problem is that I never got into that cetasika stuff; because of that abhidhamma nonsense. But you should understand what I mean by calling cetasika the all mental process involved (citta + mano).

It might be a bit confusing - but it surely is more clear, once you see that the “micro” citta (the debased citta II,) is just citta + mano. Once you see them, as the two mental parts in satta.

  • Citta is concerned only by feelings, clinging-feelings + perceptions - internal & external.
  • Mano is involved with mentally coordinating the senses; so it is also involved with itself; that is the mental part of kāya (of which mano is the sixth sense).

Makes more sense?

My take again. (personally considering a very close link between mano & kāya - With the anatomical part of the body, fading with the attenuation in the activity of its mano).
Mudita

Late edit:
Having had a thought over that cetasika thing, I realized that, as I said before, I have a very poorly grasp of the stuff. And I was right about saying that.
For if we read again about that cetasikaṃ vedanaṃ in SN 36.6, it shows that the feeling is purely mental. No body - so no mano involved. Just a debased cittalike, citta2 feeling (not mentally manolike).
Therefore, I should stick with my previous citta 2 (or “micro citta”) designation, when it comes to citta + mano. And (maybe) set cetasika aside, as the mental/citta part of that citta II. That is to say, citta II = cetasika + mano - (manasika - cetasika - [kṛ] ?)
Once again, I have not thoroughly turned my mind towards that cetasika (mental) stuff. So what I say here, on top of my previous nonsense, might also be pure nonsense.
The best thing, is to keep in mind that, (how I humbly see it,) citta II is “citta + mano”. And I might as well not get that cetasika into it, until I got it right.

Take two aspirins. :head_bandage:

Thanks! It does, eminently so. That is also how I interpret the bifurcation of feelings into the kāyika and cetasika varieties, as per SN 36.6 and others. But I do believe that the mind is still involved in the cetasika feelings, given SN 48.36. While that does not have parallels listed on SC, it appears that some of the Northern material have preserved traces of lost sutras that use this classification of the 5 indriyas.

Verily, it appears I misunderstood your original post -

Perhaps I made too much of the qualifier “purely”? It certainly led me to believe that you were taking the position that contact with mental phenomena (dhammas) would not yield the Form Aggregate.

To ensure we do not misunderstand one another, are you saying AN 9.43’s kāya in “kāyena phusitvā viharati” is to be understood as the anatomical/physical/corporeal body?

That is not my understanding of how the instrumental kāyena functions in this type of context. I think I’ve belaboured the point with Frank that kāyena here is functioning in an idiomatic sense as the adverb “personally”.

While I’ve not surveyed the Chinese texts, this adverbial sense is borne out by at least one other sutra, ie EA 27.10 -

彼云何為身證人?於是,有人身自作 證,亦不信他人

And what is the person who experiences with the body? Here, a person realizes with the body himself, not relying on/believing others. (my translation)

(apologies, but I don’t know how to use the utility you mentioned)

While I understand that in your model of mano and citta I and citta II, you hold that mano has disappeared from the formless attainments, I am not really sure how you have developed this model from the texts. Might you be so kind as to start a new thread explaining your model of mano, citta I and citta II? I am unable to comment on your model, without the details of its building blocks. It appears that I arrived at my understanding of kāyika and cetasika feelings via a different route that does not involve your model.

I don’t think it’s confusing at all. SA 936’s 身作證 is so easily resolved into -

身 = kāya
作 = karoti
證 = sacchi

At least that was the process by which I arrived at this.

May I enquire which passage you are referring to in SA 936 above? In the first part, I see a Stream Enterer being described (based on the pericope of freedom from woeful rebirths) who also happens to be 八解脫具足身作證 (endowed with the Eight Liberations, having realised them personally). In the 2nd and 3rd passages, we again see Stream Enterers who are not endowed with the Eight Liberations. Given that SA 936 contrasts noble disciples who are either endowed with a “bodily realisation” of the Eight Liberations or not so endowed, how is this endowment different from the “bodily touching” of the Eight Liberations in AN 9.43?

I concur. Which is why I think a literal connotation to kāyena as meaning “with the physical body” misses the point of this idiom.

I believe both words are formed with appamāṇa = boundless, giving appamāṇābhā and appamāṇasubhā. Are you relying on a variant reading? I can’t find any on SC.

Greetings Sylvester.

Paradoxically, to make it simple, I will quote the above cited, controversial AN 9.43 - Paradoxically:

[quote]Then again, consider, friend, the monk who, by passing wholly beyond perceptions of form, by the passing away of the perceptions of sense-reactions, not in the production with his mano of perceptions of the manifold, he enters and abides in the sphere of infinite space, thinking: ‘Space is infinite’ and to the extent of that sphere abides with body attuned to it - thus far, sir, in one particular has the seer-in-body been declared by the Exalted One.
Puna caparaṃ, āvuso, bhikkhu sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṃ atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā ‘ananto ākāso’ti ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja viharati. [/quote]
You see: no mano there.

So there is no mano.
But is there Kaya? - That is the point.

While I am at it, may I say that SA 936 with its 八解脫具足身作證 (endowed with the Eight Liberations, having realised them personally)
身 = kāya
作 = karoti
證 = sacchi
as you rightly put it; has absolutely no reference to “kāya” in its SN 55.24 parallel.
?!?
You are very confusing Sylvester. Very. We could beat around the bush (or the issue,) for ever with you, odd friend.
So, as I said before, and if you don’t mind, I am not going to rely heavily on the Chinese translations, (without, necessarily, totally curtail them - that is obvious).

The last part of AN 9.43 uses the pericope, as if one is still using the body. But when you leave the dimension of the infinitude of space, (of forms), and enter the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness and above; there should be no kāya involved anymore. Just its inactive modicum, for life sake. Kāya has felt into emptiness with its (inactive) modicum of kāya.
One is just dealing with a purely (“actualized”) mental citta1 (“macro” citta). A citta1 that has been actualized (substantiated) through the sphere of senses (part of kāya) - a citta1 knowlegable of the Noble truths; appeased in its saṅkhāras.
There’s here, neither mental dhammas produced by mano, nor mental debased feelings and perceptions (cetasika) produced by citta2.
I imagine that the cetasikas, at this higher level of citta1, are also of a quite token amount. For the saṅkhāras there, are reduced to a minimum. They are just there to process the feelings and interpretations (perceptions) of the further dimensions (infinitude of consciousness… nothingness… etc.)
No senses involved, no mano needed. No forms here either. The mind (citta - saññaVedāna - affectInterpret ) is appeased.

To answer your question - in AN 9.43, kāya in “kāyena phusitvā viharati” is to be understood as the anatomical/physical/corporeal body + the mental mano. And in AN 9.43, this kāya should not be included beyond the dimension of space (forms); as it erroneously does in the last paragraphs.
Now, if kāya, the body, is to be considered as breath (or as the maker of such bodily constituents as breath); this breath should stop at the 4th jhana. With a just a modicum left in the higher ones; just for the sake of living. Anything bodily extra, other than breath, should also be of a token amount. Considering a “body” there, should be a bit far fetched.
What could it be? - Maybe a qualitative - but definitely not a quantitative body?
प्राण, prāṇa?, the great Manitou - Hmm! - maybe. Possible. But that would be a bit anthropomorphising the all stuff here; wouldn’t it?

This is the context in which we should remain.
All the other contexts involving citta1 & mano, obviously include kāya. A kāya that includes all bodily things such as the senses, mano, and even the toenails. We even could include part of citta2; as feelings are a subproduct of kāya, as seen below.
There are no clear-cut boundaries within the all paṭicasamuppāda shebang.
Kāya is the “maker” of all. And its womb (yonisso) is assāsapassāsā (kāyesu kāyaññatarāhaṃ: “In-the-body is another body, i.e. in-and-out-breath” [as per @gabriel 's reference to Piya Tan’s translation]).
And a manasikarized assāsapassāsā, is just another feeling.
Vedanāññatarāhaṃ, ānanda, etaṃ vadāmi, yadidaṃ - assāsapassāsānaṃ sādhukaṃ manasikāraṃ."
So infer.

Kayena (“personnally,” as you put it,) sounds just like the gist of the “refuge in oneself” (internal). That is to say reading, for instance, the sign of your own citta2. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.8/11-12; namely the citta1 in you. A citta that is not debased by the senses, and debased by what “mental mano” can do with them - once the faculties (functionalities) of these senses have been triggered https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.47/3-3.268.
Paradoxically, mano is the escape. Mano is (also) able to be “personnally” responsible of your cetānas and kammas.
The less mano, the less kāya; therefore the less debased citta2 - hence, the more citta1.

Is there something “personnal” in the higher dimensions of the higher Jhanas? - I doubt so. The “I” is seriously agonizing here; if not dead.
Is there something “personnal” in the lower jhanas and the lower dimension of the higher Jhanas (space)? - I would guess so.

My take.
Mudita.

P.S: Thanks for the appamāṇa translation. Much appreciated.

Thanks yogakkhemi.

If I may summarise, our disagreement would circle on 2 issues -

  1. the meaning of kāya in kāyena phusitvā; and
  2. the role (or absence thereof) of mano in the formless attainments.

Now in relation to 1, it appears that your rigorous discipline requires that for a Pali concept to be authentic, it must also be attested in SA. I have suggested that the kāyena business in relation to the formless attainments is also found in SA 936. You reject this, on the basis that its Pali parallel SN 55.24 omits mention of kāya. I don’t find this conclusive, given that both texts seem to be structured differently. The Pali gives a discourse based the standard presentation of the Noble Ones (ie arahant, Trainees and the faith and dhamma-followers).

On the contrary, SA 936 opts for a different typology which contrasts those who dwell touching the 8 Liberations versus those who do not. The other compression in this typology occurs in its contrast of those whose bhavāsava (有漏) has ceased, versus those whose bhavāsava has not yet ceased. This typology is the MN 70 typology. If you look again at my earlier post, this was why I cited SA 936, as a SA parallel to the “liberated both ways, liberated by wisdom, body witness etc etc” typology of MA 195/MN 70.

The real question would of be - is it impossible that the Buddha gave 2 separate discourses in Kapilavatthu, each time using a different typology?

If you are keen on a perfect correspondence, look no further than SN 12.70 and its SA parallel -

Api pana tumhe āyasmanto evaṃ jānantā evaṃ passantā ye te santā vimokkhā atikkamma rūpe āruppā, te kāyena phusitvā viharathā”ti? “No hetaṃ, āvuso”.

Then knowing and seeing thus, do you venerable ones dwell in those peaceful deliverances that transcend forms, the formless attainments, having touched them with the body?” “No friend.”

SN 12.70

復問:「若復寂靜解脫起色、無色,身作證具足住,不起諸漏,心善解脫耶?」

答言:「不也,須深!」

(exactly like the Pali)
SA 347

Well, I’m not sure if I’m the one responsible for your confusion. The text is quite unequivocal, which is the inconvenience it poses to your reading. And may I enquire how that ad hominem above adds to the clarity and civility of this conversation?

Would you also render this passage as referring to the physical body -

Ime kho te dhammā ye me pubbe sutavā ahesuṃ. Tenāhaṃ etarahi kāyena ca phusitvā viharāmi, paññāya ca ativijjha passāmī’ti.

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.
SN 48.50

The contrast looks obvious - kāyena is in contrast to what has been learnt from other, echoing the EA 27.10 citation I furnished earlier. Would you care to address this adverbial sense of kāyena as “personally/directly” attested in these texts and grammars?

I think the burden would be on you to present your arguments as to why the grammars are wrong to treat kāyena as adverbial, rather than for me to justify its usage adnominally. I reject the adnominal reading.

As for issue #2 and your assertion that mano has no role in the formless attainments, could you explain how you translate the ablative amanasikārā into the locative “not in the production with his mano”? What is inadequate with the standard rendering “with non-attention to perceptions of diversity”? Thirdly, does this mean that everywhere else where manasikāra occurs, we should replace the standard rendering of attention to “production with mind”? Fourthly, how do we reconcile this supposed absence of mano from non-kāya phenomena with SN 48.36?

Hi @Sylvester, I guess it doesn’t but let’s give @yogakkhemi the benefit of the doubt. :slight_smile:

@yogakkhemi, hello to you too :slight_smile: I’m guessing your comment came from an innocent and harmless intention.

It’s wonderful to see civil, pleasant and friendly disagreement on this forum. All in all we’re really good at this and it’s a teaching in itself…if only our governments could do the same more often!

We do have these excellent guidelines to help us when making posts though, and most of our governments probably don’t! They’re well worth a read and actually quite enjoyable to read. It’s good for all of us to read these from time to time, just as a bit of a refresher. :slight_smile:

With Metta

6 Likes

this sutta is quite instructive on kaaya and citta and mano and sukha.
a few highlights:

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

(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."

this sutta serves as a commentary for how the standard formula for supernormal powers in 6ab, explicitly stated a couple of times, with the part of interest,

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.

and the mind and body dichotomy used in the similes and the meditation instructions themselves to do the levitation,

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.

so some points i want to make, if it’s not very obvious from the passages quoted, is when we see mind and body being contrasted in suttas related to samadhi, body is so often referring to the anatomical body made of 4 great elements, as this sutta makes explicit.

when we see “kāyena” used in , i don’t have to dig up a pali grammar book to check if it’s a polynomial or abdominal :slight_smile: yāva brahma-lokāpi

as-far-as (the) brahma-world
kāyena vasaṃ vatteti.

it’s talking about a flesh and blood body made of 4 elements.

when the buddha talks about

kāyampi citte samodahati,
body {is immersed} in-the-mind,
cittampi kāye samodahati,
(and) mind {is immersed} in-the-body,
sukha-saññañca
pleasurable-perceptions

putting aside whether sukha is a mental, physical, or both, the fact that a meditator who needs 4th jhana or higher samadhi to be able to perform this feat (of levitation), is it so hard to imagine sukha + kāyena from 3rd jhana standard formula referring to a flesh and blood anatomical body that experiences sukha?

1 Like

Yes.

Sylvester: I have suggested that the kāyena business in relation to the formless attainments is also found in SA 936.

But not in its SN parallel !?!

The fact that you consider kayena as “personally” is ok with me. And while I am not going to spend too much time on the issue; I pretty much agree with you (at least up to the dimension of the infinitude of space and consciousness).
Yet, does or doesn’t that mean that “personnaly”, involves “physical body” for you? You would be kind to put somme sort of personnal point of view on the matter. It seems to me that you are beating around the issue.
Please, please, please - answer at least this question. In other words, what kind of relationship do you see between “personally” and the “physical body” (aka the adverbial: bodily)?
What do you mean by “personally” - (other than grammatically speaking - In other words, in a more contextual way)?
Please, answer that. And quite straightly as I did. That is to say, what are its components - Toenails?, mano? citta? - whatever - physical, not physical, both?.
What does this adverbial “personally” means?

Because for me “personally” or “bodywitnessly”, or “bodily”, or whatever, does not make much difference. What will make a big difference is when you will have clearly defined - in your own words - “personally”.

As far as I am concerned, as I said before, Kāya is an all-embracing concept for me. The idea of a modicum of kāya left; when its physical (carnal and mental/mano) activity is over in the higher dimension of the infinity of space, is a pretty subtle concept to grasp. But an easy one; once one comprehends the concept of emptiness.
This is my explanation of when the “bodily” or the “personally” ends somewhat. This is my point of view from the reading of SN /SA for the most part - which has no contradiction attached.

The rest of your post in indigestible for me. For the mere reason that it involves suttas, that I do not consider interesting.
All this liberation in “both ways” ( AN 9.43; AN 9.44; AN 9.45, MN 70; etc.) have no parallels in the SA.
The only suttas with parallels in the SA are DN 28 and SN 8.7; and it leaves the door open to the speculations of AN 9.43; AN 9.44; AN 9.45 (that have absolutely no parallel).

[quote]Moreover, lord, unsurpassable is the way in which the Exalted One teaches the Norm concerning the classification of individuals: that there are seven classes, to wit:—freed-both-ways, freed by insight, having bodily testimony, having gained the view, freed by confidence, follower of wisdom, follower of confidence.
Aparaṃ pana, bhante, etadānuttariyaṃ, yathā bhagavā dhammaṃ deseti puggalapaṇṇattīsu. Sattime, bhante, puggalā. Ubhatobhāgavimutto paññāvimutto kāyasakkhi diṭṭhippatto saddhāvimutto dhammānusārī saddhānusārī. Etadānuttariyaṃ, bhante, puggalapaṇṇattīsu.
DN 28 (SA 498)[/quote]
From that, I guess some speculators could imply that ubhatobhāgavimutto means the next two liberations (paññāvimutto & kāyasakkhi). But what would be the rationale for that. Is it AN 9.43; AN 9.44; AN 9.45 !?!?

SN 8.7 speaks about sixty bhikkhus liberated in both ways, while the rest are liberated by pañña (saṭṭhi bhikkhū ubhatobhāgavimuttā, atha itare paññāvimuttā”ti); but no reference to the “body witness” stuff (if just ?implied? in ubhatobhāgavimuttā).
Implying that ubhatobhāgavimuttā includes kāyasakkhi is somewhat far fetched. Isn’t it?
By the way, Skt sākṣin (sakkhi,) philosophically speaking, is the thinking subject, the ego; when it sees internally with the mind.
The question is which mind - Mano?, or Citta?, or both? - Could perceiving (citta,) what the kapellmeister is mentally doing (mano,) be called “the mind” in this instance. Is it a thorough mental event, if it involves seeing how the senses come to a dhamma? - could the fact that the senses are involved, make this “bodily” stuff more than a purely mental thing?
I am trying desperatly to come back to the OP question.
These are the bloody questions I would ask myself anyway. And that I would try to solve from doctrinal texts, that have no contradiction within.
And again, when the senses are not there anymore, in the higher dimensions; what interest could there be for a mano?
Wouldn’t feeling and perception be enough?
Is there still the Manitou called “body” in that? To what extent?
I have already given a clear standpoint about it all. But what about yourself; dwelling in contradictions.

Your grammatical pickiness might be good for some stuff. But most of the time, I find them absolutely useless contextually; and a bit digressive as well.
Buddhism is much more simpler for me, than this deep scholarship that takes you to nowhere.
This is not an “ad hominem” remark Sylvester; but a frank assessment about how you approach the reading. Sorry if it is bothering you.
As I said before, I did wait quite some years before entering this forum.

For me, odd means “beyond or deviating from the usual or expected”. I don’t see any incivility in that. Did I use the word “queer”, that would have been more ambiguous and duplicitous? No!
To me, odd simply means “peculiar”.
You are just “deviating from the usual,” with you over-reliance on grammar, for instance. That’s it. No big deal. Gee.

This is for the civility.

As for the clarity of the conversation, I would say that less oddity, if you allow me;, namely a lesser tendency to over rely on grammar, and to interpret it, into some personal suitedness; would prevent us from contextual dogmas, (and sometimes “red herringish” digressions.
So there is not really an “ad hominem” oddity here; but more an oddity of scholarship - a peculiar scholarship on your part.
I suppose your contradictions, (or some other obscure reason,) have you plunge in the manders of finickingness.

No offense intended, my friend. For I have always respected your acute, (yet often personalized,) knowledge in the Pali grammar.

Perfect example of what I said before.
When did I say that that the the grammars were wrong to treat kāyena as adverbial ?!?
However that does not lead us very far, as far as having you giving us your definition of “personally”.

Well, isnt the ablative case, also the case indicating the instrument of the action, (as much as the agent in passive sentences)?

So does it meaan: “By” mano? - “not in the production by his mano”?
If that can really make a contextual difference - first, excuse my poor english - and then correct it as you wish.

Also, while I’m at it, I don’t understand why manasi मनसि, and particularly manas मनस्, which in Sanskrit has the prima meaning of intellect or mental, and a secondary meaning of “faculty of attention,” has had the word manasikara translated as “attention” in Pali. In addition, knowing that kṛ (cf pr. karoti) means: produce, create - manasikaroti is always translated as “to pay attention to”, or “to think over?”, “to bear in mind”, etc. Why that? - tell me.
“To create, to produce with the mano (intellect/mental)” - that what it should be translated to.

O yes! - That surely would help; in most, if not all cases. We are just dhamma buillders, for what I know.
Some do it wisely - some don’t.

I would add that it is “wise” to be discernable enough, about when & how each dhamma begins. Then to create (or not) these dhammas “by” the mano, wisely from the beginning (yoniso). In other words, like the Buddha did, discover what are the real nutriments and causes of each dhamma.
That is “wise” - (I guess this is why “from the origin” (yoniso,) has been also strangely translated as “wise” - once one knows that yoni योनि has the original meaning of source, origin, or even uterus/womb).

So “production with mind”, “production by mind” - whatever.
You know, when I think about sañña, I translate it by “affectApercept”. I guess that broadly speaking, I could also conceptualize manasikara as “producedByMano”, or whatever similar.

Mudita.

1 Like

No doubt.

I am from Frankreich. That should explain it.

As Kant put it in once, in one of his silly book - (geniuses write silly books also): “Anglos long for esteem, and French amiabilities”.
Pretty hard to conciliate both, I presume.

Sorry.
You won’t hear from me again.

Thanks to @sujato for his invaluable contribution with suttacentral.net; in the here and now.

Farewell & Mudita.

Rob.

kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ

Hi Frank

Are you discounting the adverbial reading “he personally exercises mastery”? If so, why?

Let’s examine the anaphora going on with the kāya that populates this sutta. It starts off by referring to the manomaya kāya. The next occurence would be iminā ­cātuma­hā­bhū­tikena kāyena (with this body composed of the 4 great elements). Here, the anaphora is unmistakable, the kāya in this sutta is referring to the manomaya kāya.

Is this manomaya kāya a “flesh and blood body made of 4 elements”?

As I never tire of pointing out, this manomaya kāya is the manomaya attapaṭilābha (the acquisition of Self made of mind) : DN 9. See also the synonym attabhāvapaṭilābha. While attapaṭilābha is the synonym for kāya, this kāya cannot on linguistic and doctrinal grounds mean a “flesh and blood body made of 4 elements” in this context. Imagine the impossibility of resolving this unicorn arūpa attapaṭilābha = a formless flesh and blood body made of 4 elements.

Kāya, in this context of manomaya kāya, is the “self”. The Buddha was prepared to go out on a limb by adopting an Upanisadic concept, as He also took pains to say -

Citta, these are the world’s designations, the world’s expressions, the world’s ways of speaking, the world’s descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them
DN9.

He would not have had to declare this caveat if attapaṭilābha was your plain old “flesh and blood body made of 4 elements”.

Speaking of “flesh and blood body made of 4 elements”, don’t you think this more properly belongs to the oḷārika attapaṭilābha (possessed of form, made up of the four great elements, feeding on physical food). Given that both oḷārika attapaṭilābha and manomaya attapaṭilābha possess form, does this not suggest that the latter’s Form Aggregate falls into into the subtle (sukhuma) classification, rather than the oḷārika (gross/coarse) classification? Given the absence of "physical food " in the manomaya, what possible connection can it have with physical flesh and blood?

So, the simplest way to read the references to the “body” and mind in SN 51.22 would be to think of the “acquisition of self” and the mind. One feels, the other emotes. Remember the distinction between the feelings (kāyika) and emotions (cetasika) in SN 36.6 and SN 48.36?

Might I trouble you to answer the questions I had posed you earlier? Thanks.

Hi Rob

Yes, being frank is definitely an aspect of Right Speech as evidenced in a number of Early Buddhist Texts.

Right Speech just goes further. It would have to though wouldn’t it, for it to be in accordance with the Dhamma?

How do we develop as human beings if we can’t disagree, be frank and argue in a manner which is in accordance with Dhamma? How does the 8 Fold Path and gradual training unfold without this? I think the rules of discourse here are quite gentle really. They also include - as in accordance with Dhamma, the role modelling found in the Vinaya and other EBTs - advice about how to accept admonishment.

It is totally up to you Frank, with regards to being seeing around here… But you are very welcome.

With Metta.

1 Like

Thanks Rob. Let me see if I can do justice to your post.

Already answered by this post -

As for your plea -

A bit of a petitio principii is at work again. Is the kāya even established as a “physical body”? Isn’t it begging the question to assume it is? However, pls see my immediate post above to Frank on the meaning of kāya as “acquisition of self”, which in itself does not entail a physical body.

No petitio principii here, but I’ve already answered this already. Or was it not clear when I said -

How unclear could that possibly be?

How one experiences “personally” (kāyena) depends on the thing being experienced. Which external āyatana is being contacted? Can there be 6 contacts based on the full saḷāyatanaṃ of 6 external āyatana all at the same time? I take the monkey simile in SN 12.61 as militating against this possibility, since 6 concurrent contacts entails 6 sets of consciousness at the same time. My estimation therefore of a personal experience would be that one experiences personally based on visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental contacts, one at a time.

When one has a manomaya kāya, it seems clear to me that the external base here is “made-of-mind”. That makes it a dhamma, which can be contacted by the mind, but none of the other 5 internal sense bases. That makes the experience very personal, rather than a theoretical possibility that one has heard from others.

It also contradicts SN 48.36, upon which I see you’ve elected to remain silent.

This is quite inexplicable. Much earlier, you alluded to your “ad hominem EBT store”, premised on the rigorous yardstick that something must also be attested in the SA for the Pali text to be acceptable. Then, when I suggest that the evidence for the “liberated both ways” typology is to be found in SA 936, you suddenly take the position -

In you read SA 936 carefully, both types of arahants (i) who are liberated both ways; and (ii) who are liberated by wisdom, are discussed. We know these are arahants, given the predicate 有漏斷 (having ended the existence-effluent). You can’t move your goal-posts, just because I have satisfied your rigorous standards and found an SA sutta that proves your theory wrong.
(apologies for earlier misleading you into thinking that the sutta was about Stream Winners; I missed the 有漏斷 bit in my haste).

I also pointed out SA 347. This explicitly identifies those arahants as 慧解脫 (liberated by wisdom). So, what now is your basis for revising the rules of your “ad hominem EBT store”, when I have presented two SA sutras that contradict your theory that the “liberated both ways, liberated by wisdom and body-witness” typology is inauthentic?

This is a typology of arahants, not of Trainees.

Has anyone made the suggestion other than that the body-witness has destroyed only some of his/her effluents? How could the liberated both ways (limited only to arahants) be conflated with the body-witness (Trainee only)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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

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.