Skip to main content

šŸ”—šŸ“ collection of notes for kāya-sakkhi = 'eyewitness', kāyena phusitvā = 'eyewitness' (lit. touched with the 'body')

Internal notes

4šŸ‘‘☸ → EBpediašŸ“š → kāya-sakkhÄ«:


kāya-sakkhī, kāyena phusitvā = eyewitness, body witness

✅ kāya-sakkhÄ« = eyewitness, body witness. 'Body' here can be both literal and figurative, sometimes only figurative.
✅ kāyena phusitvā = eyewitness, literally contacted with the 'body'. 'Body' here can be both literal and figurative, sometimes only figurative.
⛔ 4 jhānas are part of 8 vimokkhas, part of 8 abhi-bh-āyatanas, part of 9 meditative attainments.
They are part of those groups, not equivalent to them.
So you can not say because formless attainments are also part of 8 vimokkhas,
and formless has a figurative mind only 'body',
therefore 4 jhānas must have a formless mind only 'kāya'.
That's fallacious. It would be like saying, Australia was a British penal colony where they sent their criminals,
and since John Doe is Australian, therefore John Doe is a criminal.


External notes


Related articles

B. Sujato third jhāna, "The body as metaphor", more like out of context, out of his body, out of his mind





kāya-sakkhī (body witness)

 I found a great English term to translate kāya-sakkhi and kāyena phusitvā.

This English word has been around since 1539, and is used  the same way as kāya-sakkhi and kāyena phusitvā. 

Eyewitness

(Definitions from Oxford Languages)

noun: eyewitness; plural noun: eyewitnesses; noun: eye-witness; plural noun: eye-witnesses

   a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it.


merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eyewitness

 First Known Use of 'eyewitness' 1539, in the meaning defined below

 one who sees an occurrence or an object especially : one who gives a report on what he or she has seen

Examples of eyewitness in a Sentence

* The police are hoping to locate an eyewitness to the shooting. 

* He was able to give an eyewitness account of the shooting.

* He had an 'eyewitness' meditation experience of seeing the emptiness of the five aggregates.

(as oppposed to) He heard about someone's meditation but has no personal eyewitness experience.

(as opposed to) He studied the theory of how meditation is used to see five aggregates, but has very limited eyewitness experience and personal realization of it.

* He personally experienced the physical pleasure in this flesh and blood anatomical body in third jhāna, as well as having eyewitness experience of the formless meditations. 

* I did not have an 'eyewitness' account of the moment Sujato first transcribed his third jhāna translation, but his published translation can be 'seen' by all, he admits to authorship, and that is sufficient evidence to convict him. 


We are not dummies. We can tell the difference between literal and figurative in this case.

Some translators have literally rendered   kāya-sakkhi and kāyena phusitvā.as "body witness" and "touched with the body" even in contexts where the physical body is not involved, such as formless meditations. 

Some translators, such as Sujato, render  kāya-sakkhi and kāyena phusitvā figuratively as "direct experience" and "personally experience." Nothing wrong with that on the surface, it's a legitimate choice, especially if something is lost in cultural translation and the figurative meaning is not clear.

However, just as 'eyewitness' doesn't require using a physical eye in some contexts but the meaning is still clear, there is no reason for translators to overtranslate kāya sakkhi and explain the figurative meaning to us. We already know how to do that.

There's also abundant precedence with right view, knowing and seeing, 'dhamma eye' arising, etc., where we know how to contextually recognize the difference between literal and figurative. I.e. the physical body and physical eye were not necessary for those phrases. 

So the 'body' and 'eye' are clearly cases where we can easily discern the difference between literal and figurative according to context. 


Sujato is grooming you for his erroneous translation of third jhāna

Perhaps Sujato's translation of kāya figuratively as "direct personal experience" was originally an innocent decision. But in the critically important third jhāna formula that appears over 100 times in the suttas,  he uses the premise that readers can't be trusted to discern between literal and figurative use of the 'body', to justify removing the literal physical body and physical pleasure out of third jhāna, and replace it with a non-literal body that is 'mind only happiness'.

He uses fallacious reasoning (4 jhānas are not part of the stages of 8 vimokkhas and 8 abhiayatana where formless attainments are active). Full details audited here:

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2021/04/b-sujato-third-jhana-body-as-metaphor.html

One more thing to consider. If Sujato's reasoning for eliminating the body in third jhāna were legitimate, don't you think Buddhaghosa and the team of scholar monks he was an editor in chief of, would have thought of that first, and used that same fallacious argument in their elimination of the 3rd jhāna body in Visuddhimagga? They wouldn't have had to resort to their more complicated sequence of redefining several important terms in meditation to accomplish the same maneuver that Sujato does so concisely.


Digital Pāįø·i Dictionary

kāyasakkhi

adj. body-witness, who experienced formless states [under construction]

kāyasakkhī

adj. who has witnessed (the truth) with the body; who has experienced viscerally. [kāya + sakkhī]


kāyena phusitvā

idiom. having personally experienced; (comm) having touched with the mental body; lit. touched with the body


Forum discussion

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=42889


https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=675584#p675584



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex