MN 56 Bob punches Carl in the face - A Primer on why 3 types of actions are distinct (you can't redefine kāya as 'mind'!)

Alternate title: Bob punches Carl in the face - A Primer on why 3 types of actions are distinct

MN 56 Kāya needs to be one's physical body, in order for 3 types of actions (bodily, verbal, mental) to be distinct.

 If  Ajahn Brahm, LBT Theravada, Sujato, etc., had their way, then the 3 types of actions (bodily, verbal, mental), would not be distinct actions clearly distinguished from each other.

    MN 56¹ - (Jain leader explains 3 types of action: bodily, verbal, mental)

        MN 56^1.1 – (3 types of action distinct from each other)
        MN 56^1.2 - (Jain leader says bodily action is most potent of 3, Buddha is incredulous)
        MN 56^2.2 - (Buddha says mental action is most potent of 3)

In other words, if Sujato, Ajahn Brahm, Vism.  exercise their license to turn 'kāya' into a 'mental body' (instead of a physical one) whenever it's convenient for them, then these 3 types of actions, which are used frequently in the suttas, would be violated and void, uncertain in meaning, no longer distinct from each other.

A similar type of sophistry they sometimes employ, is they say, 'kāya' can mean EITHER or BOTH mental + physical body.

But you see in these 3 types of actions, they need to be distinct, mutually exclusive types of actions. You can't smuggle in slippery definitions where they aren't distinct from each other, because then the type of karmic consequence is unclear.

A Primer on why 3 types of actions are distinct

1. bodily action -  Bob punches Carl in the face. 

Carl is in PHYSICAL pain and he bleeds. 

This produces a certain type of karmic consequence, which is different from 2. and 3.

2. verbal action - Bob vocalizes speech (vācā), calling Carl, "you ugly stupid man you don't deserve to live."  

Carl decodes the sound he hears into speech-fabrications (vacī-sankhāra), also known as linguistic, verbal thoughts (vitakka & vicāra) that one thinks before they are vocalized. 

Carl uses his own thoughts (more vitakka & vicāra) to ponder what Bob said, and decides his feelings are deeply hurt.

Carl's decoding of Bob's vocalized speech into vitakka leads him to MENTAL pain.

Carl's mental pain then causes PHYSICAL pain in his crying and body shaking and feeling woozy.

This produces a certain type of karmic consequence, which is different from 1. and 3.

3. mental action - Bob thinks to himself, "Carl, you ugly stupid man you don't deserve to live." But Bob doesn't vocalize it, doesn't say it out loud, doesn't move a muscle or intentionally betray his emotions. Perhaps Bob's body and facial expression unintentionally betrays ill will, perhaps not. Perhaps Bob purifies his mind and decides to eliminate any underlying ill will towards anyone. Or Perhaps Bob lets the ill will fester and accumulate, and the next time Carl angers him, the built up ill will propels Bob into some harmful bodily and verbal action. 

A mental action probably won't produce a visible tangible consequence  immediately.

Bob won't suddenly inflict physical and/or mental pain upon Carl with a split second of mental action. 

But Bob's mental action, leading to a series of other mental actions,  plants seeds for the future that will ripen in karmic consequences. 

This produces a certain type of karmic consequence, which is different from 1. and 2.

Conclusion

1.  Nobody has a (valid) license to redefine the Buddha's definition of kāya from a physical body into a "mental body devoid of any physical property", because this would break the many sutta passages that rely on these three types of action being  distinct from each other.

2. If someone claims they have some special knowledge of knowing when the Buddha is being tricky with slippery and ambiguous use of how 'kāya' is sometimes a 'physical body', sometimes a 'mental body of mental factors devoid of physical factors', they are lying, or incompetent, or fraudulent. You are being groomed. Don't trust that person.