Moving on now to his analysis of MN 152 and how the Buddha’s scorn for Parasariya’s method is proof that the jhanas are not bereft of sense data. But first, I should correct his mistake in citing BB’s translation of MN 51 at p.48. BB did not translate “sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃvedeti” as “still feeling pleasure in the body”, but as “still feeling pleasure with the body”. As to the meaning carried by the idiom kāyena, see the old discussions at Touching enlightenment with the body.
Firstly, he makes the equation of the arahant’s development of the faculties (3rd part of MN 152) with the 3rd Jhana on the basis that the arahant’s development of the faculties is said to have equanimity, mindfulness and full awareness in common with the 3rd jhana pericope. What he overlooked to mention is that the arahant’s development in MN 152 omits to mention pleasure, which is one of the defining features of the 3rd jhana. If we take his argument to its logical conclusion, it would appear that the 3rd jhana would only be accessible to arahants, since the other 2 types of development of the faculties do not share all of the features of the 3rd jhana.
Secondly, I say he (and Bronkhorst) is mistaken in interpreting the Buddha’s scorn for Parasariya as proof that the Buddha did not teach that the jhanas are empty of 5 sense content. The latter’s method involves sense-avoidance, whereas the Buddha’s method was that of sense restraint to give up liking and disliking (see the Comy explanation of the 1st part of MN 152’s development of the faculties). Sense avoidance does not develop skills in handling the reactions engendered by the anusayas anusenti-ing. That, IMO, is the message of MN 152, a view echoed by Ven Analayo at footnote 145, Vol II of his MN Comparative Study.
Ven Analayo cites Ven Pasadika’s critique of Bronkhorst’s argument. That is in “Buddhist and Pali Studies in Honour of the Venerable Professor Kakkapalliye Anuruddha”. Might anyone have a copy of that?