Sorry, got my inflections mixed up. The karajakāya
is in the singular.
This is how I interpret the karajakāya
mentioned in the Karajakāya Sutta. Firstly, the entire vagga
discussed kamma performed bodily (kāyakamma
), verbally (vacīkamma
) and by the mind (manokamma
) - Saṃsappanīya Sutta, AN 10.5.1.6. The same broad division of kamma into 3 runs through suttas 1 to 8 and 10 of the vagga. The Karajakāya Sutta is the only sutta in the vagga
that does not divide the kamma into bodily, verbal or mental; instead it addresses only "iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ
" (bad kamma done by this karajakāya
I take the kāya
as not referring to the physical body, but as meaning "group", ie the group of 3 mediators of the 3 types of kamma. If this karajakāya
were limited to only the physical body, we will have a problem accounting for manokamma
. What else drew me to make this connection is the fact that the Karajakāya Sutta discusses the brahmaviharas
as means to overcoming the results of pāpakamma
. Now, I do not take this proposition as being limited to only kāyakamma
. I refer to other suttas, eg DN 13 and SN 42.8 which also make the same point regarding the brahmaviharas
as means of overcoming the future results of "limited kamma". No distinction is drawn between bodily kamma, verbal kamma or mental kamma in these suttas. This leads me to interpret karajakāya
born of/arising from actions". I can agree with you that karajakāya
belongs squarely in "old kamma", which the Kamma Sutta, SN 35.145 would identify with the 6 indriyas/ayatanas
of vision, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. The kāya
seems therefore to also be capable of being read to refer to the set/collection of the 6 indriyas/ayatanas
Which brings us nicely to the crux of the issue - were the Commentators saying that all six indriyas
(or all 3 mediators of kamma) were saturated with Jhanic pitisukha
, or only Mind? (This would be difficult to reconcile with the Vsm explanation of this in Chap IV, para 175). I think it is possible to interpret the kāya
similes as pointing to all 6 indriyas
, but there will be problems if we interpret this as Jhanic pitisukha being felt
by the eye, ears, nose and tongue during
the Jhana. This will run counter to Geoff's original argument -
There are a couple of points worth mentioning here. Firstly, these five strands of sensual pleasure are all external sensory objects. As such, they correspond to objects within the five external sensory spheres (bāhirāyatanā). Thus, these five sensory objects do not include in-and-out breathing, which is considered internal, nor the internal felt-sense of the body.
If I now agree with you that Jhanic pitisukha
, we run into the greater problem of MN 43. Only the physical body can "contact" phoṭṭhabba
. None of the other 4 indriyas of eye, ear, nose and tongue could possibly "contact" phoṭṭhabba
Let us accept for argument's sake that the said 4 indriyas
were not intended by the Commentators to be included within karajakāya
. Let's test the hypothesis that Jhanic pitisukha
Firstly, I do not quite know what to make of Geoff's original assertion above. Firstly, I thought that there are 6 (not only 5) external sensory objects. In the typical ayatana scheme, dhammas count as an external ayatana
(eg DN 22 or SN 35.4). As for internal ayatanas
, again the typical ayatana
scheme identifies the 6 internal ayatanas
with the 6 indriyas
of seeing, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. I am not aware of any sense object whatsoever being described in the suttas as being an internal ayatana
. Might you know of any sutta that actually identifies in-&-out breathing as "internal"?
We are still back to square one as to what kāmā
in the 1st Jhana pericope means. I could of course take the easy way of citing the CPD entry on kāma
. Taking Geoff's citation of AN 6.63 does not really help -
Continuing with AN 6.63, we can see that a clear distinction is made between sensual pleasures (kāmā) and the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā). After defining the five strands of sensual pleasure in the previous passage, the Buddha states:
But monks, these are not sensual pleasures (kāmā). They are called strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) in the discipline of the noble ones.
The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s beautiful things are not sensual pleasures.
The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The beauties remain as they are in the world,
While the wise remove desire for them.
Here the Buddha is differentiating sensual pleasures (kāmā) which are the resolve of passion (saṅkapparāga), from the beautiful external sensory objects of that passion, pertaining to which the wise remove desire.
The Pali for the verse runs -
Saṅkapparāgo purissa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.
Geoff translates the nominative singular of kāma
) as "sensual pleasure" (singular). It can also be legitimately translated as "sensual desire" (singular) - see the PED and CPD entries. I leave it to you to decide which reading is better, Geoff's reading that saṅkapparāga
be conflated with an external sense object, or saṅkapparāga
being identified with sensual desire.
Geoff also cites MN 13, as authority for the proposition that -
MN 13 Mahādukkhakhandha Sutta tells us that the strands of sensual pleasure are the allure of kāma.
Actually, MN 13 states that the pleasure that arises in dependence on the 5 cords of sensual pleasure are the allure of kāmā
(plural!) (Ko ca bhikkhave kāmānaṃ assādo
?). In fact, if one looks at an extended version of the allure, gratification, drawback and escape theme, SN 35.13 makes it explicit that the kāmā
are just rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā and phoṭṭhabbā
Would there be room for phoṭṭhabbā
to be cognised when one is supposed to be secluded from the kāmā in 1st Jhana?
Thank you for your patience.