Assaji wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 12:07 am...
(quoting peter's article)
Kuan (2005, 288) sees this as implausible as it is said that in the third jhāna the ‘body’ (kāya) is suffused with this sukha; but kāya is not used only to refer to the physical body,5 also covering the broader sense of ‘body’ as a ‘group’. At MN I 299, the term sakkāya, i.e. sat (existing) kāya is explained as the five upādāna-kkhandhas, i.e. the grasped-at processes of body and mind. At DN II 62, on the nāma-rūpa nidāna, talks of the ‘mind-group’ (nāma-kāya) and ‘form-group’ (rūpa-kāya), with SN II 3–4 explaining nāma as ‘feeling, perception, volition, sense contact and attention’. Moreover, it is said that one senses with the kāya in the formless states, which are beyond input from the five physical senses (AN IV 426–28, MN I 293, cf. MN I 477–479). Hence when Vibh 259, on ‘experiences sukha with the body (kāyena)’ in the third jhāna, explains kāya as the khandhas of perception, volitional activities and consciousness, this certainly plausible. What is meant is happiness spreading through the mentally experienced ‘body’.
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/36750[/quote]
Assaji, do you agree with that?
In other words, how do you interpret 3rd jhana's "sukham ca kayena patisamvedeti"?
I've argued at length already, and shown many examples where the suttas, commentaries, Ab and Vism., when they are contrasting kaya and citta, they're obviously referring to the physical body in contrast to the mind, not a mental body which wouldn't contrast with the mind.
Peter is basically saying Ab Vb redefinition of kaya for third jhana is more authoritative than DN 2 for example, where both rupa and kaya are definitively shown in many cases to definitely be the meditator's physical body (4 jhana similes, the 4 elements meditation on rupa and kaya born of mother and father done with the imperturbable 4th jhana).
If the buddha wanted to say 3rd jhana's sukha felt with 'kaya' was mental, why didn't he just use a clear term like sukha somanassa, sukha cetasaka, or even nama-kayena? He expects the listeners to know the secret code for kaya in 3rd jhana (Ab Vb is 100 years later after the Buddha), but the kaya reverts back to a physical body kaya in 4th jhana, and the imperturbable version of 4th jhana?
Doesn't that sound insane to you?
Also, on Peter's 'kaya sakkhi" body witness argument, the same one Sujato uses to redefine 3rd jhana kaya, I looked at every single occurrence of those usages here:
https://lucid24.org/tped/k/kaya/sakkhi/index.htmlTwo big problems with that argument.
1. 4 jhanas is not the 9 vimokkha. So if you're making a statement about the 9 vimokkha being 'body witness metaphorically experiencing' something. Just like if I said the rock band of 4 members of the Beatles, and their wives, making 8 members, all live a life of fame and wealth, I can't reasonably deduce from that the 4 beatles just married into their money. Maybe their wives are rich billionaire heiresses, but more likely the 4 beatles made their fortune from their rock band product, in the millions, and it's the wives who got rich from that.
In other words, you can't deduce kaya in 4 jhanas must be mind only just because some statement made about 9 vimokkhas have to apply to all 9 members. Bad logic.
2. And you can't rule out the case that kaya being physical in the 9 vimokha and kaya phusitva in the simple explanation that one requires a healthy physical body to attain those 9 vimokkha.
3. As an interesting aside, look at the origin of body witness and touching with the body, exemplified in SN 12.68:
SN 12.68
SN 2, 1. nidānasaṃyuttaṃ, 7. mahāvaggo, 8. kosambisuttaṃ SN 12.68, para. 12 ⇒
Suppose there was a well on a desert road that had neither rope nor bucket.
Seyyathāpi, āvuso, kantāramagge udapāno, tatra nevassa rajju na udakavārako.
Then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched.
Atha puriso āgaccheyya ghammābhitatto ghammapareto kilanto tasito pipāsito, so taṃ udapānaṃ olokeyya.
They’d know that there was water, but they couldn’t physically touch it.
Tassa ‘udakan’ti hi kho ñāṇaṃ assa, na ca kāyena phusitvā vihareyya.
Those metaphorical expressions came about based on a physical body that's dying from heat and thirst so people can understand it clearly.
So in conclusion,
1. Peter treats Ab Vb as overriding earlier sutta definition of kaya, I think that's invalid.
2. Peter's kaya sakkhi and kayena phusitva argument is weak, 4 jhanas aren't even explicitly mentioned in 9 vimokkha, and the passages in AN 9 where kayena phusitva are applied to 9 attainments, 4 jhanas are not 9 attainments, you can't deduce something about 4j from a statement that needed to apply to all 9 members.
3. The Buddha would have to be insane to use a secret code for 3rd jhana kaya when he simply could have used plain language to indicate sukha was not physical.
No comments:
Post a Comment