SuttaCentral
But that presupposes that the Buddha and the players in the narratives did not use idiomatic expressions, and that the reciters/redactors would have converted idiom into something literal for the sake of missionary work.
I should loan you my thick copy of Anuruddha’s Dictionary of Pali Idioms. It will convince you that Pali is a hellish language. 
uff, I give up and just meditate. Hey, maybe that’s what they wanted all along!
you don’t expect good when people start explaining with “it’s complicated” 
This passage (which appears only once, in MN 70) revolves around kāyasakkhi, the body-witness (who appears quite often in the Anguttara).
The kāyasakkhi is someone who has mastered the arupa attainments - or more specifically like stated in AN 9.43 - someone who can dwell in ‘the cessation of perception and feeling’. So kāyena is related to kāyasakkhi. When we find a proper translation of this term we are closer to the admittedly strange kāyena .
How do we have to understand kāyasakkhi then?
Is that someone who witnesses the body? with the body? in person / personally?
What is the place of kāya in someone who has transcended all appearances in meditation? And why is someone who has realized ‘only’ the third/fourth jhana not a kāyasakkhi?
Wynne in his “The origin of Buddhist meditation” discusses kāyena in some detail (p.102ff ‘An early Buddhist controversy: meditation or intellectualism?’) I recommend reading it if you have it at hand as he references many suttas.
According to these broader references there is a simple and a more obscure way to interpret kāyena. One would be “He actually/really experiences” in contrast to someone who does it only intellectually or conceptually.
The other is more complex and Wynne traces kāyena back to a brahmanic pre-buddhist practice (e.g. the bodhisattva’s two teachers) where the culmination of the mystic experience was to “touch the deathless with the body”. And that the suttas retained this expression in reference to the arupas.
Now, how does that feedback into our third jhana? Is it related at all? or can it still be that kāyena here is just an instrumental?
Because the reference in MN 70 is limited to the register of the formless realms, I don’t see that we can apply it to the third jhana. In order to show an idiomatic use of kāyena in the 3rd jhana we would have to find a consistent use of it apart from the formless realms. Does anything come to mind?
Take a look at MA 195 where it’s not limited to the formless attainments but extends to experiencing all the 8 Liberations.
I have read Wynne and he was in fact one of my inspirations in citing SN 12.68. I would ask - just how different would "actually/really " be from "personally "? If one experiences something personally, isn’t that experience actual/real? Isn’t that the whole point of that sutta?
There doesn’t seem to be anything complicated at all, but perhaps I am just naive. Ven Analayo takes that instrumental as simply meaning “personally”.
PS - you do realise, I hope, that Wynne dismisses the canonical references to the formless attainments as not coming from the Buddha? I don’t see him suggesting that there was a simple versus obscure interpretation of kāyena. What he criticises is the intrusion of the pre-Buddhist praxis into the suttas, but no suggestion at all that kāyena was understood differently in the authentic versus inauthentic portions.
could you please quote more specifically what sentence you refer to?
You’re absolutely right, there is no difference. It’s just that atman doesn’t resonate here (or not yet, I still have to look into Olivelle).
But that is the parallel to MN 70? I think we would need for the 3rd jhana a kayena idiom that is separated completely from the ‘body witness’ or the one ‘liberated in both ways’.
Sure, he traces this very specific kāyena to a ‘touching the deathless realm with the body’ (amatam dhatum kayena phusitva). The interpretation of ‘personally’ I derive from the beginning of the chapter where he/the sutta contrasts the ‘intellectual’ (dhammayoga bhikkhu) with the ‘meditator’ (jhayi bhikku + khayena).
I apologise again for my blindness regarding grammar.
How does this comparison to MN 62 differ? Thanks
evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya disvā paṭhavīdhātuyā nibbindati. Paṭhavīdhātuyā cittaṃ virājeti.
Having seen it like this, as it really is, with right wisdom, one loses interest in the earth element, one detaches the mind from the earth element. Ānandajoti
When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind. Thanissaro
…makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element. Bodhi
MN 62
There’s nothing wrong with these translations, but my reason for rejecting the possibility of the locative of reference being the grammatical case of pītiyā stems from the fact that this interpretation treats the pīti as remaining; one is simply dispassionate to it, in your interpretation. That contradicts AN 10.72.
Thank you but that is not my interpretation since the formula clearly states only sukha remains, namely, “still feeling pleasure with the kaya.…”
I remain deeply intrigued by the use of the term ‘viraga’ since the formula could have simply used more straightforward terms, as found in SN 36.11, namely:
When one has attained the third jhāna, rapture has ceased.
When one has attained the third jhāna, rapture has been stilled.
When one has attained the third jhāna, rapture has been calmed.
SN 36.11
Possibly the translation of the 3rd jhana formula into English cannot capture the meaning of ‘viraga’ as used in the verse.
My intention here is not to be argumentative or pedantic. I just sense there is a specific & significant reason for using the word ‘viraga’, of which the essence (rather than literal Pali-English translation) is something like the following:
Due to dispassion towards rapture, the rapture fades…
Somehow, the word ‘viraga’ includes within itself both cause & effect, similar to SN 22.79, which states:
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
In SN 22.79, it is not only the feeling itself (as a ‘thing’ or noun) being discussed but also the act of feeling (verb? 
).
Piti (a vedana) is not the same as the earth element (in MN 62) or anicca-dukkha-anatta objects (in SN 22.59) because piti is the cause of lust (raga) and both rapture & lust have a mutual conditioning. Although vedana causes lust, the arising of lust can increase the intensity of the associated vedana. A loss of lust will cause the vedana to also fade (example, seeing a fly or cockroach in delicious soup),
Originally, the rapture arose due to the calming of the mental sankharas stored in the physical body. Due to the calming, the neurons of the nervous system got excited, giving rise to the rapture. But later the mind gets disenchanted with & dispassionate towards the rapture, because it is too coarse. This loss of subtle delight causes the rapture to fade.
Anyway. I doubt I can ever prove my suspicions linguistically but, based on practical considerations, I sense the word ‘viraga’ is used for a special purpose (rather than merely ‘fading away’, ‘cessation’, ‘stilling’, ‘calming’, etc). Instead, ‘viraga’ here describes the method by which the rapture is calmed.
Thank you again for your Pali language teachings. 
I will try a tentative summary of the discussion so far in the third jhana with line-to-line notes. I have in bold unclear, ambuguous or unresolved expressions:
bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca viharati,
Open questions:
sato ca sampajāno
Here we have again common translations and their criticism. ‘Mindful and with clear comprehension’ would be a common reading. It is interesting that the literal understanding is mostly active, while the common understanding is rather passive: sato - sampajāno - upekkho is literally active (remembering, fully discerning, overlooking) vs. the common understanding (mindful, aware, equanimious). That reflects the view of what happens in the 3rd jhana. As a contrast Wynne finds that the literal understanding “… suggests that the subject is doing something different from remaining in a meditative state, i.e. that he has come out of his absorption and is now once again aware of objects.” There is a modern consensus that in the suttas samatha is followed by vipassana. I advocated the view that vipassana / investigation starts here, in the 3rd jhana. A clear backing by suttas is probably difficult to be found.
sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṁvedeti,
kāyena as the instrumental here can mean literally ‘with the body’ - the meaning of it would be unclear. Or it could mean 'with/using the body" indicating that the body is instrumental for experiencing sukha. Or it could mean ‘actually, really, personally’ as opposed to ‘theoretically’. Since there is no theoretical impostor in sight, the last reading could mean ‘only in the 3rd jhana he actually experiences sukha (in jhana 1&2 it was pale and contaminated)’
yaṃ taṃ Ariyā ācikkhanti:
‘which nobles describe’ - this is still mysterious in its purpose. Nowhere else in the suttas have I found such a comment. And it adds unnecessarily (?) to the otherwise terse jhana formula. I listed the possibilities of the meaning at the beginning of the topic. But since ‘arya’ appears here it might be to indicate that only buddha-disciples can reach the 3rd jhana.
‘Upekkhako satimā sukhavihārī’ ti
all terms discussed above
tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati
simply ‘he dwells having attained the 3rd jhana’
Hey Gabriel,
I haven’t been following all of this long and detailed thread, so thanks for summarizing it for me. I’m trying to translate 2 suttas per day at the moment, so forgive me if I am overly brief in these remarks. Also, having not read all the posts, please forgive me if I repeat unnecessarily. But I do support your efforts to revisit basic assumptions and translations!
No. In fact the phrase is misrepresented by showing just these two clauses. In full:
pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca viharati sato ca sampajāno sukhañ ca kāyena paṭisaṃvedeti
As you can see it’s a series of four phrases, each signified with a ca in the middle. Clearly pīti belongs with virāga. This is reinforced by the fact that each of the four jhanas begins with a phrase signifying the ending of something that was present before; in this case, that is pīti.
This case indicates the problem with relying overly on grammar. Grammar is a blunt instrument. The ending -iyā could be dative, genitive, ablative, or instrumental. Not to mention the many, many, many different senses that each of those cases can have, and the overlaps and ambiguities between them. The sense is determined rather by syntax and context.
It is an ablative.
Yes, it is an adjective, and it means “watching over with equanimity”. Note that similar phrases occur quite frequently elsewhere:
In each case it refers to a kind of “middle” perspective, unaffected by forces pulling the mind one way or the other.
It is widely acknowledged that upekkha has two senses. The more common sense is, as here, “watching over with equanimity”. For this reason Nyanamoli experimented with translating it as “onlooking equanimity”. The less common sense is as a synonym for neutral vedanā.
The tricky bit is that these senses are not entirely disentangled, and a translation tends to fall on one side or the other. I have given some consideration to trying to find a rendering that would bring out the “onlooking” aspect more satisfacorily, but so far without success.
To be clear, though, the English word “equanimity” normally has this sense, too. The definition on Google:
mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, especially in a difficult situation.
“she accepted both the good and the bad with equanimity”
That example sentence is very similar to the Pali sentences I have quoted above. So I don’t think there’s a strong case to need another rendering.
Just to note, while it is possible to identify these kinds of issues with translations, don’t forget that they don’t just apply here, but to literally every single word in the text. Translation deals with fuzzy parallels, not exact equivalences. Equivalence in meaning, if it is to be attained at all, emerges at a higher level than the single word or even phrase.
Neither sati nor sampajañña have anything to do with vipassanā. In fact they are almost always used in contexts outside of vipassana, and hardly ever in a vipassana context. When they are used in such contexts, the vipassana aspect is not signified by these terms, but by other elements in the passage.
Here, as usual in advanced meditation contexts, kāya emphasizes direct personal experience.
I get what you’re trying to say here, but don’t overstate it. It’s not that the experience previously was weak, it’s just that here it is perfected.
I agree, it is a curious statement. Occasionally we find ariya used in a sense broader than the normal use as “enlightened disciple”. But this is very unusual, so it’s unlikely to be the case here, unless there is evidence in favor of such a reading.
But it shouldn’t be over-interpreted. It’s simply a way of praising the jhana and definitely does not mean that only noble disciples can attain it.
[quote=“sujato, post:52, topic:3714”]It
is widely acknowledged that upekkha has two senses. The more common sense is, as here, “watching over with equanimity”. For this reason Nyanamoli experimented with translating it as “onlooking equanimity”. The less common sense is as a synonym for neutral vedanā.
[/quote]
Thanks for this Bhante. I wonder if for the first sense, we might be better off reading it as “equipoise” (as part of the formations aggregate), while reserving "equanimity " for when the feeling aggregate is intended.
I appreciate the time and comments, bhante!
Still, often we just find ‘equanimous’ or ‘with equanimity’ - without the ‘watching over’. So the misleading impression I get (because of the ambiguous term) is kind of an imperturbable or signless practice. I see that you’re right in rejecting vipassana in this context, yet what are we ‘watching over’ here - sukha? but that would be vedanànupassanà again, hm.
I meant more that maybe other sects or brahmins could reach jhana1&2 but only the ones inspired by buddha-dhamma can reach jhana3 - but I admit that’s difficult to back up.
And I still wonder, the fourth jhana, and from there the knowledges are so close. Why stop here and praise a 3rd jhana. My expectation would be
Sometimes a quirk is just a quirk.
I might have found a fitting reference (the only one) that discusses sukha in the 3rd in a non-standard way. But it’s again confusing, because it places the realization of sukha into the fourth jhana!
MN 79 reads
There is an exclusively pleasant world (ekantasukha loka), Udayin; there is a practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world… first jhana…second jhana…third jhana…This is the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world.”
“Venerable sir, that is not the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world; at that point an exclusively pleasant world has already been realised.”
“Udayin, at that point an exclusively pleasant world has not yet been realised; that is only the practical way to realise an exclusively pleasant world.”… the fourth jhana… It is at this point that an exclusively pleasant world has been realised.
So, does the praise in the 3rd jhana belong into the 4th? Maybe it’s a glitch and not just a quirk 
Perhaps this is like AN 9.34, where pleasure is to be found, where nothing is felt.
Hmm, Udayin is an interlocutor here as well.
Bh. Analayo points to differences in the Chinese parallel to MN 79 that are maybe helpful?
[In MN 79] the Buddha identified the attainment of the three jhānas as the ‘path’ to an entirely happy world and proposed the fourth jhāna … as the ‘realization’ of an entirely happy world.
The Madhyama-āgama account, however, presents attainment of the three jhānas as the ‘realization’ of the entirely happy world and communion with devas of the corresponding realms as the ‘path’ to an entirely happy world, thereby perhaps confusing the path with the goal.
Confusing indeed. But he also doesn’t seem to see any problem with the 4th jhana being the ‘entirely happy world’ - whereas we got so used to the idea of the 4th jhana as an ‘entirely feelingless world’
Maybe describing 4th jhāna as sukha is doing so in the same way as describing nibbāna as sukha, precisely because there are no feelings (I think this is said in a conversation between Buddha and Ānanda). I think this is logically consistent with still describing 3rd jhāna as the greatest state with sukha vedanā.
bhante Sujato,
could you share your translation of the standard 4 jhana formula? i know your entire translation project is still a work in progress but surely some of the important fundamental pieces such as samma samadhi you would have already put much thought and work into, and maybe wouldn’t mind letting us see 
for the pleasant abiding here and now, dittha-dhamma-sukha-viharaya, in AN 6.29 that is defined as the first 3 jhanas, an AN 4.41 all 4 jhanas. sorry if it’s been quoted already, i tried to read the entire thread but may have missed a few. and sometimes the thread is being added to while i’m reading and posting.