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 -
- a subordinate clause made up of a locative absolute formed with past participles; and
- 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”.