Hi Bhante
Re Q1, I think this is where you and I inform ourselves differently on the nature of "
sukha" mentioned in the 1st to 3rd
jhāna pericopes. You look at it as
somanassa (a
cetasika feeling), whereas I view it as the hedonic prequel to "joy". For me,
sukha in these pericopes mean pleasure. The
cetasika sequel to pleasure simpliciter would be either
pīti (1st and 2nd
jhāna) or
upekkhā (3rd
jhāna). For example, when
sukha disappears to give rise to the 4th
jhāna, you will still have 2 types of feelings. The
kāyika would be the
adukkham-asukhā vedanā, while the
cetasika would be
upekkha. Where
somanassa would seem to disappear would be the same place where
domanassa disappears, namely when
satipaṭṭhāna is well-established and has achieved
vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. I would just point out that I understand the term
kāyika very differently from the standard exegesis that is based on the Abhidhamma. I'm afraid it's too involved to explain here, but perhaps you might look at
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=13998 for a start. As I understand it, the
kāyika pertains to the hedonic tone arising at any of the 6 faculties, while the
cetasika is the evaluative and affective sequel that arises only at the mind. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that the mind is capable of
kāyika feelings (in the sense of hedonic tone) and then experiencing the
cetasika (affective) sequel. See a clear example of this from MN 148 -
after discussing the other 5 sense bases -
Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's latent tendency to passion underlies. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's latent tendency to aversion underlies. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's latent tendency to ignorance underlies.
Re Q2, see this -
If the clansman gains no wealth while thus working & striving & making effort, he sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught: 'My work is in vain, my efforts are fruitless!'
Tassa ce bhikkhave kulaputtassa evaṃ uṭṭhahato ghaṭato vāyamato bhogā nābhinipphajjanti, so socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṃ kandati sammohaṃ āpajjati: " moghaṃ vata me uṭṭhānaṃ, aphalo vata me vāyāmoti."
The underlined text is a standard pericope for the
cetasika feeling of grief, explicitly identified as such in SN 36.6. The perception of loss is in itself unpleasant; what triggers the affective sequel is the latent tendency to aversion, again explained in SN 36.6. I try to keep the hedonic and affective components separate, as it is supposed to be a function of sense restraint to rein in the
anusayas specific to each hedonic tone, such that one need not grieve over a painful feeling.
See also -
Whatever pleasure & joy arise in dependence on that beauty & charm: That is the allure of forms.
Yaṃ kho bhikkhave subhaṃ vaṇṇanibhaṃ paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṃ somanassaṃ. Ayaṃ rūpānaṃ assādo
Again, you have the experience bifurcated into hedonic tone and affective sequel.
Re Q3, I would answer Yes. I don't think the Great Disciples were incapable of lyrical speech, especially when in the same sutta, it was expressly acknowledged that nothing is felt in that. To me,
nibbānaṁ paramaṁ sukhaṁ is simply inspired speech given poetic licence.