Vism.'s Buddhaghosa says the sukha-pleasure is experienced by a physical body in third jhana!

(this article is part of a series: SN 48.40 🔗de-corrupting and reconstructing ) 

This article is short, and explores two fascinating points:

1. Vism.'s Buddhaghosa says the sukha is experienced by a physical body in third jhana!

2. Vism.'s Buddhaghosa (seems to) disagree with B. Sujato and Peter Harvey interpretation of "sukha with the kaya body" in 3rd jhana, as a metaphorical body that "personally experiences something".

A very interesting thing about Vism. third jhana gloss that I hadn't noticed before Tse Fu Kuan pointed it out in his "clarifications of vedana in jhana" article. 

1. Buddhaghosa in Vism. seems to be interpreting "sukham ca kayena..." as a physical body that experiences the pleasure of jhana!

(Vism. 3rd jhana standard formula gloss: sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃ-vedetī)

	175
♦ idāni sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃ-vedetī'ti	Now, as to the clause he feels bliss with his body:
ettha kiñcāpi tatiyaj-jhāna-sam-aṅgino sukha-paṭisaṃ-vedanā-bhogo natthi.	here, although in one actually possessed of the third jhāna there is no concern about feeling bliss {sukha},
evaṃ santepi yasmā tassa nāma-kāyena sampayuttaṃ sukhaṃ.	nevertheless he would feel the bliss {sukha} associated with his mental-body,
yaṃ vā taṃ nāma-kāya-sampayuttaṃ sukhaṃ, taṃsamuṭṭhānenassa yasmā atipaṇītena rūpena rūpa-kāyo phuṭo, yassa phuṭattā jhānā vuṭṭhitopi sukhaṃ paṭisaṃ-vedeyya.	and after emerging from the jhāna he would also feel bliss {sukha} since his material body (rūpa-kāyo) would have been affected by the exceedingly superior matter originated by that bliss associated with the mental body (nāma-kāya).
tasmā etamatthaṃ dassento sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṃvedetīti āha.	48 It is in order to point to this meaning that the words “he feels bliss with his body” are said.

Frankk comment:

For the longest time I just read that gloss and assumed Buddhaghosa was interpreting 'kaya' of third jhana as Abhidhamma Vibhanga's 'nama kaya' mental body devoid of physical body.

But after Tse Fu Kuan pointed it out, I studied the passage again carefully, and now how I read it is, even though Buddhaghosa is dutifully relaying Abhidhamma interpretation of 'kaya' as a 'nama kaya' first, the fact that he then goes through the effort to explain why the 'rupa kaya' (physical body of meditator) experiences sukha,  tells me that he interprets the third jhana pali standard formula as referring to a the rupa kaya, as one should, when the mind and body dichotomy, used by suttas, abhidhamma, and commentaries alike all use to differentiate the two. 

If the Buddha had wanted to say the kaya was a nama-kaya, he could have simply said 'sukham ca nama-kayena' ('nama kaya'  in his vocabulary from other suttas), or by any of the other typical ways to differentiate mind/body, such as using adjectives cetasika (mental) in contrast to kayika (physical). 

2. Vism.'s Buddhaghosa (seems to) disagree with B. Sujato and Peter Harvey interpretation of "sukha with the kaya body" in 3rd jhana, as a metaphorical body that "personally experiences something".

At least, that's what you could reasonably deduce since he doesn't bring it up as a possibility. Normally in exegetical treatises like this, and elsewhere in Vism., Buddhaghosa tends to discuss all possible interpretations of pali expressions.

I've dissected in detail elsewhere (will dig up links later)  why B. Sujato and Harvey are wrong in their interpretation, but I'll just reiterate the most important reason.

To say that "one personally experiences sukha" is a redundant and worthless statement. It doesn't tell you anything about the nature of sukha, kaya, or third jhana. If you didn't personally experience third jhana, who else did? Your mamma? Your dog? Your neighbor? 

In an oral tradition, the important terse formulas are carefully constructed, each word packed with meaning and purpose. 

Sukham ca kayena patisamvediti, is used to convey the sukha vedana, which can be physical, mental, or usually both, is expressed here to say that 3rd jhana's sukha vedana definitely must include the physical dimension here. 

The Buddha wouldn't compose important formulas with extra sentences that serve no purpose.