suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoherence (w.r.t. suttas)

● MN 19 - 🔗🔊 24m, Dve-dhā-vitakka: two-sorts-of-thinking

prior to first jhana, remove all akusala thoughts and replace kusala thoughts. Second jhana is reducing the amount and intensity of kusala thoughts to allow the body to pacify/relax/passaddhi. 

• SN 12.61 and SN 12.62 kaya of 4 elements vs. mind of citta, mano, vinnana

• SN 22.95 lump of foam simile: body of kaya + rupa contrasted against lifeforce and vinnana separated at death

Abhidhamma and Vism. apologists like to argue that 'kāya' is not just a physical anatomical body, but also contains a body of mental components (essentially assimilating mind and mental factors under the word 'body').  They need to do this to make Abhidhamma theory coherent. To realize this agenda, they need an unlawful license to substitute every instance of body/kāya in the suttas with either:

1) mental body devoid of the physical body

2) a physical body + the mental body

They need this fraudulent device to be able to render the suttas ambiguous and incoherent, in order to make the Abhidhamma coherent and superficially appear not to contradict the suttas.

For example, they redefine the jhana as being an out of body experience and entered into a frozen stupor for a predetermined amount of time, and justify it by using their unlawful license to redefine 'kaya' into whatever definition best suits them.

But suttas like the links at the top expose the ludicrous nature of this fraud. 

Let's see how those relevant passages read when we substitute the 'kaya' of physical body with a 'kaya' of 'mental body only devoid of physical body.' 

MN 19 is describing how vitakka and vicara work in first jhana, and how thinking too much would tire 'body' and mind.

anu-vitakkeyyaṃ anu-vicāreyyaṃ,	(if I should) excessively-think (and) excessively-ponder,
neva tatonidānaṃ bhayaṃ samanupassāmi.	I do not envision any danger that would come from it,
Rattin-divaṃ cepi naṃ, bhikkhave,	even for a day & night,
anu-vitakkeyyaṃ anu-vicāreyyaṃ,	(if I should) excessively-think (and) excessively-ponder,
neva tatonidānaṃ bhayaṃ samanupassāmi.	I do not envision any danger that would come from it,
api ca kho me aticiraṃ anu-vitakkayato anu-vicārayato	except that thinking & pondering a long time
kāyo kilameyya.	would tire the body (kaya).
kāye kilante VAR cittaṃ ūhaññeyya.	When the body is tired, the mind (citta) is disturbed;
ūhate citte ārā cittaṃ samādhimhāti.	(and a) disturbed mind (is) far (from a) mind (in) undistractable-lucidity.’

So the sutta says, 

the anatomical physical body of the meditator would become tired if he thinks too intensely, and that in turn would cause the mind to be disturbed (as opposed to passadhi pacification/relaxation awakening factor).

Abhidhamma reinterpretation of 'kaya' body would say: 

The 'body of mental only factors' would become tired from thinking too much, and that in turn would cause the mind to be disturbed. In other words, if you think too much, the mind gets tired and because of the mind being too tired, the mind would become disturbed. A little redundant don't you think? Kind of an idiotic and obvious thing to say. And you lose a key piece of information on how the physical body being tired blocks the physical body from fulfilling the passadhi/pacification awakening factor (needed for samadhi and jhana). 

SN 12.61 is even more ludicrous if you try to apply the Abhidhamma 'kaya' = 'mind only' redefinition

“assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano imasmiṃ cātumahābhūtikasmiṃ kāyasmiṃ nibbindeyyapi virajjeyyapi vimucceyyapi.	“Mendicants, when it comes to this body made up of the four primary elements, an uneducated ordinary person might become disenchanted, dispassionate, and freed.
Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
Dissati, bhikkhave, imassa cātumahābhūtikassa kāyassa ācayopi apacayopi ādānampi nikkhepanampi.	This body (kaya) made up of the four primary elements (other suttas define rupa as 4 elements) is seen to accumulate and disperse, to be taken up and laid to rest.
Tasmā tatrāssutavā puthujjano nibbindeyyapi virajjeyyapi vimucceyyapi.	That’s why, when it comes to this body, an uneducated ordinary person might become disenchanted, dispassionate, and freed.
Yañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi, tatrāssutavā puthujjano nālaṃ nibbindituṃ nālaṃ virajjituṃ nālaṃ vimuccituṃ.	But when it comes to that which is called ‘mind’  (citta) or ‘sentience’ (mano)  or ‘consciousness’,  (vinnana) an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disenchanted, dispassionate, or freed.
Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
Dīgharattañhetaṃ, bhikkhave, assutavato puthujjanassa ajjhositaṃ mamāyitaṃ parāmaṭṭhaṃ:	Because for a long time they’ve been attached to it, thought of it as their own, and mistaken it:
‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti.	‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’
Tasmā tatrāssutavā puthujjano nālaṃ nibbindituṃ nālaṃ virajjituṃ nālaṃ vimuccituṃ.	That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disenchanted, dispassionate, and freed.
Varaṃ, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano imaṃ cātumahābhūtikaṃ kāyaṃ attato upagaccheyya, na tveva cittaṃ.	But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind.
Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
Dissatāyaṃ, bhikkhave, cātumahābhūtiko kāyo ekampi vassaṃ tiṭṭhamāno dvepi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tīṇipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno cattāripi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno pañcapi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno dasapi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno vīsatipi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno tiṃsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno cattārīsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno paññāsampi vassāni tiṭṭhamāno vassasatampi tiṭṭhamāno, bhiyyopi tiṭṭhamāno.	This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.
Yañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi, taṃ rattiyā ca divasassa ca aññadeva uppajjati aññaṃ nirujjhati.	But that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.

Frankk final remarks:

I hope by this time you can figure out for yourself how a kaya of 4 elements is referring to the meditator's anatomical body? Nevertheless, I'm sure some Abhidhamma apologist will jump in and try to unleash some novel sophistry to explain how rupa and kaya in this case also is referring to "a collection of mental factors devoid of physical parts", because as you know, "kaya means collection of things, not physical body."

Forum discussion

Of course kaya can have other meanings besides the physical body, but when it's used in a dichotomy "mind vs. body" as I described in OP, and third jhana's "sukham ca kayena patisamvedeti", it's clearly referring to a the meditator's physical body.

If you used Abhidhamma's license to ambiguate kaya into "mind only collection of factors" anytime they feel like it, no one could ever commit any vinaya offenses. karma by kaya, and karma by mano/mind, are two very different classes. In  the vinaya monastic code, for example what constitutes murder or sexual offense,  bodily actions have to respect the conventional body/mind dichotomy used in language. If 'body' was just 'collection of mental factors', no one would ever be guilty of murder or rape.

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

• Edit
• Delete
• Report
• Quote

Post by frank k » Wed May 05, 2021 6:47 am

pegembara wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 6:08 am...
The point is as stated ie. kaya can mean more than just the body. If you assume kaya to mean exclusively the body, then you have not fully understood that kaya also means the subjective experiencer. The teacher is of the view that the use of kaya to mean exclusively the physical body is a later addition like the Satipathanna sutta.

And no, I know next to nothing about Abhidhamma and am not exactly a fan.

Yes, it MIGHT mean more than the physical body and include some mental activity in some contexts. But the OP context is clearly not that -it's mind body dichotomy the way people understand it across thousands of years of history spanning different cultures and languages.

And I don't agree with his interpretation of kayagata. You could interpret kaya as physical body only, and that doesn't stop guarding the sense doors or the other exercises in MN 119 from working. Or even if you do want to say kaya includes the mind (without excluding body) in that context, then that would still mean the 4 jhanas in kayagata is inclusive of the physical body. Ajahn Brahm and Vism. are saying that kaya is mind only, no physical body at all, which is an egregious leap defying any rational thinking and having no support in the suttas whatsoever.