DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

[Ceisiwr]

There is good reason to let the other forum participants know that half baked logic, eel wriggling, sophistry, equivocation should not be tolerated, to encourage a culture of actually discussing in good faith.
If you were sincere, you would explain in detail how you interpret those passages in the OP, and how you arrived at the conclusion rupa and kaya could not be referring to the meditator's anatomical body.
But since you've committed the same offense so many times on so many discussions,
Welcome to the blocked list, time waster.

In terms of rupi I have done, so this is rather ridiculous. In terms of kayo I never said it didn’t relate to the physical body here. Once again, sloppy. As ever when pressed you simply snarl and scuttle away. Reminds me of a Frenchman I know

[ToVincent]

If by : "Reminds me of a Frenchman I know" - (who, I suppose also: "simply snarl and scuttle away") - our fatuous soul mean this :

viewtopic.php?p=617968#p617968

then I'll be delighted to "simply snarl and scuttle away", and show all these invalid arguments, displaying some lame and poor sophistry and ingenuity, in the hope of ultimately deceive and drag some morons, into that pseudo-scientific (yet wizardly) drab lore of his.
The (ever changing) avatars speak for themselves.

In the meantime, I'll definitely avoid to engage directly with bad faith personified.
.
.

[Ceisiwr]

You asked this question, "Seeing as how kayo is nominative and rupi is adjectival I’m confused as to how you can equate them?" I asked you, "How do the adjective and the noun not correspond mutually?" It's not like they are both nouns and one is accusative and one is nominative.

The question was rhetorical. I thought it quite clear it would be absurd to equate a description with the subject.

At the same time, what is a description if not of a subject? What do adjectives correspond to if not nouns and such? If you describe John as wise, it doesn't meant that wise is the only thing John is, but it certainly means that John is wise. When you describe kāya using the adjectival form of rūpa, the same still stands.

Of course adjectives relate to the nouns which they modify, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent. Equivalency would make them synonyms. Whilst John is fat, fat is not a synonym for John.

[Coëmgenu]

So who was it who was saying then that all rūpa is kāya, or that any time you encounter the word rūpa you can just plug kāya in as a synonym?

[Ceisiwr]

So who was it who was saying then that all rūpa is kāya, or that any time you encounter the word rūpa you can just plug kāya in as a synonym?

Here:

DN 2 4 elements section from OP: kaya, rupa, 4 elements all equated
‘ayaṃ kho me kāyo rūpī
‘This body of mine is physical.
cātu-mahā-bhūtiko
It’s made up of the four primary elements,
mātā-pettika-sambhavo
produced by mother and father,

To say that kāyo, rūpi and the 4 mahābhūta are all "equated" is to say they are synonyms of each other.

[Coëmgenu]

I see. I took "equated" as "referring to the same thing," namely describing the kāya here. The 4 elements are what makes up rūpa. Here, they make up the kāya. The kāya here is indicated as being "of rūpa." Therefore, the kāya here is referred to as both comprised of 4 elements and an instance of rūpa -- not the only instance of rūpa. Maybe I was wrong.

For instance, to say that "rūpī" and "cātumahābhūtiko" are equated with "kāya" in that pericope would not be wrong.

[Ceisiwr]

I see. I took "equated" as "referring to the same thing," namely describing the kāya here. The 4 elements are what makes up rūpa. Here, they make up the kāya. The kāya here is indicated as being "of rūpa." Therefore, the kāya here is referred to as both comprised of 4 elements and an instance of rūpa -- not the only instance of rūpa. Maybe I was wrong.

For instance, to say that "rūpī" and "cātumahābhūtiko" are equated with "kāya" in that pericope would not be wrong.

Equating them would still treat them as synonyms. Seeing as how this is a synthetic statement rather than a tautological one I struggle to see how this is a valid reading?

[Coëmgenu]

Well, they are equivalent in that they are all describing the kaya. The word kaya is describing the kaya. The word rupi is describing the kaya. The word cātumahābhūtiko is describing the kaya. Also, the term mātāpettikasambhavo is describing the kaya. These are equated to the same thing, but none of the descriptions are exhaustive descriptions of it. Now, "kaya" always "equates to" kaya because that is how words function, so that is a bit of a cheap point, but the other two clearly are being used to refer to kaya in ways that clarify different aspects of what this "kaya" is in the pericope.

For instance, "Who is fat in here?" "John is fat." Where is the fat located in this room? In John's body. When we say "John is fat," it doesn't mean that all fat is John, but it does mean that there is some fat that is attached to and equated with this name "John." Not all fat, but some, and John has non-fat elements comprising him also.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, they are equivalent in that they are all describing the kaya. The word kaya is describing the kaya. The word rupi is describing the kaya. The word cātumahābhūtiko is describing the kaya. Also, the term mātāpettikasambhavo is describing the kaya. These are equated to the same thing, but none of the descriptions are exhaustive descriptions of it. Now, "kaya" always "equates to" kaya because that is how words function, so that is a bit of a cheap point, but the other two clearly are being used to refer to kaya in ways that clarify different aspects of what this "kaya" is in the pericope.

For instance, "Who is fat in here?" "John is fat." Where is the fat located in this room? In John's body. When we say "John is fat," it doesn't mean that all fat is John, but it does mean that there is some fat that is attached to and equated with this name "John." Not all fat, but some, and John has non-fat elements comprising him also.

Equivalency would mean synonymy.

"All bachelors are unmarried"

The word "bachelor" and "unmarried" are equivalent and so are synonyms. They say the same thing. This is an analytical statement.

"John is fat"

The word "John" and "fat" are not equivalent. The predicate "fat" is describing the subject "John". They are not synonyms. They do not say the same thing. This is a synthetic statement, since new information has been synthesised which is not contained within the word "John".

‘ayaṃ kho me kāyo rūpī...
‘This body of mine is rūpī..."

We see the same here. The word "kāyo" is the subject whilst "rūpī" is the adjectival predicate. This is a synthetic statement as the predicate "rūpī" is telling us something new about "kāyo" that isn't contained within the word itself. Being a synthetic statement it is not tautological, and so "kāyo" and "rūpī" are not synonyms. In other words, not equivalent.

[Coëmgenu]

The sort of equivalence I read in the statement was not that all rupa was identical to all kaya etc. It was that rupi etc., all these adjectives, were referring to the same semantic object, the kaya. They are all describing the kaya, so inasmuch that they all refer to the same object, they refer to the same thing. For instance, "comprised of rupa" and "comprised of the four elements" are equivalent statements. The four elements are rupa are equated here. This equation is exhaustive. All rupa is is the four elements arranged. I suppose if we want to be very pedantic, we can point out that there is some kaya that is not "rupi" and is not comprised for four elements, from a mother and father, etc. But we are not talking about that kaya in this section. This isn't about, for instance, the namakaya. We are talking about the kaya that is rupi and cātumahābhūtiko here. No? So given that, "the ball is red" does not mean, "all red things are this ball," it does mean "The ball is red" and doesn't really mean "This ball is not red." The body is described as "of rupa," and therefore is rupa. Saying "rupa is equated with the body" needn't mean that it is exhaustively equated with the body. The body can be a kind of rupa or particular rupa.

I think this is just a disagreement as to the proper semantic range of the verb "to equate." I am open to a much looser sense of it than you. I am using the second sense from Merriam-Webster, if we want to have this devolve to the level of bringing out dictionaries.

[Ceisiwr]

The sort of equivalence I read in the statement was not that all rupa was identical to all kaya etc. It was that rupi etc., all these adjectives, were referring to the same semantic object, the kaya. They are all describing the kaya, so inasmuch that they all refer to the same object, they refer to the same thing. For instance, "comprised of rupa" and "comprised of the four elements" are equivalent statements. The four elements are rupa are equated here. This equation is exhaustive. All rupa is is the four elements arranged. I suppose if we want to be very pedantic, we can point out that there is some kaya that is not "rupi" and is not comprised for four elements, from a mother and father, etc. But we are not talking about that kaya in this section. This isn't about, for instance, the namakaya. We are talking about the kaya that is rupi and cātumahābhūtiko here. No? So given that, "the ball is red" does not mean, "all red things are this ball," it does mean "The ball is red" and doesn't really mean "This ball is not red." The body is described as "of rupa," and therefore is rupa. Saying "rupa is equated with the body" needn't mean that it is exhaustively equated with the body. The body can be a kind of rupa or particular rupa.

I think this is just a disagreement as to the proper semantic range of the verb "to equate." I am open to a much looser sense of it than you. I am using the second sense from Merriam-Webster, if we want to have this devolve to the level of bringing out dictionaries.

Predicates referring to their subjects was never something I objected to. My objection was the claim that the adjectival predicate in the sentence can be equivalent to the subject.

This isn't about, for instance, the namakaya. We are talking about the kaya that is rupi and cātumahābhūtiko here. No?

I agree.

For instance, "comprised of rupa" and "comprised of the four elements" are equivalent statements.

Only if they are synonyms.

So given that, "the ball is red" does not mean, "all red things are this ball," it does mean "The ball is red" and doesn't really mean "This ball is not red." The body is described as "of rupa," and therefore is rupa. Saying "rupa is equated with the body" needn't mean that it is exhaustively equated with the body. The body can be a kind of rupa or particular rupa.

"The ball is red"

This is a synthetic statement. The subject "ball" is one thing and the predicate "red" is another. They stand in relation through the predicate modifying the noun but to say they are equivalent would be to say they are equal. If they are equal then they are interchangeable, thus being synonyms. If they are synonyms then we retain the meaning regardless of if we plug in "ball" or "red", eg "Pass the ball" or "Pass the red". Someone who understood "ball" would also understand "red" if they were synonyms. This however is not the case, since "red" in our sentence functions as an adjective and so modifies the noun "ball" rather than being equivalent with it. Synthetic statements, which contain adjectives, are not tautological and so do not contain synonyms of each other. They are not interchangeable.

‘ayaṃ kho me kāyo rūpī...
‘This body of mine is rūpī..."

Here "kāyo" is one thing and "rūpī" is another. Rūpī stands in relation to kāyo. The predicate modifies the noun rather than being equivalent, and so interchangeable, with the subject. This is a synthetic statement.

[Coëmgenu]

But "This body of mine is rūpī" actually does mean that the body and rūpa are equivalent, but not that the equivalence is exhaustive. "This body of mine" is "particular" rūpa, or "a kind of" rūpa. It is not exhaustively all rūpa. "The ball is red" means that there is a particular instantiation of redness that corresponds to or is equivalent to "(the colour of) the ball." Red is a colour, and can't be anything other than a colour. The colour of the ball is red. Not all red-coloured things are the ball, this is not an exhaustive statement, but the ball is an instance of "particular red colouring" in addition to non-red and non-colour elements that also come to constitute "the ball" when it is finally seen. "This body of mine is rūpa" is also a non-exhaustive statement. The body also corresponds to a consciousness that is not rūpī, for instance, showing that "kāya = rūpa" is not exhaustive.

Either way, I understand that you understand "to equate" to mean exclusively "is utterly identical to" or "is exhaustively identical to."

[Ceisiwr]

But "This body of mine is rupa" actually does mean that the body and rupa are equivalent, but not that the equivalence is exhaustive. "

To be equivalent they would have to be synonyms of each other. One modifying the noun as an adjective shows a relationship, not equivalency. To say kāyo is/has rūpī does not mean that kāyo and rūpī can be interchangeable without any loss of meaning, i.e. synonyms.

Either way, I understand that you understand "to equate" to mean exclusively "is utterly identical to" or "is exhaustively identical to."

In terms of linguistics I take "equate" to mean synonymity. In other words, interchangeability without loss of meaning. Kāyo and rūpī are related here, but they have different meanings.

[Coëmgenu]

4 = 2+2

The above is the sort of equivalency you are talking about, where one side of the literal "equation" is completely identical to, exhaustively corresponding to, the other side of the equation and each side is interchangeable without loss of meaning. For instance here 2+2=4 is the same as 4=2+2 which surprises no one. However, there are also classes of equivalency. For instance, if B is the set of all balls, and ~ is the equivalent relationship of "is coloured identically", in that case, one particular equivalence class consists of all of the red balls, and B/~ could correspond to "the set of all ball colours." The only equivalency relation that you want admitted is "is (utterly) equal to." That's fine. It's a normal usage of "equates to," but I don't think that is what the poster meant.

[ToVincent]

This fastidious sementic pickiness, is really poor rhetoric — and a poor way to mask a more important flaw.
That is to say when one tries desperatly to cover one's use of the mere definition of the Monier-Williams dictionary — without searching the Pre-Buddhist literature as well — Which was conducive to wrongly define rūpa as a mere "form/appearance".
That is a far more dicey flaw, than a mere, sort of ill-defined semantic point - yet quite straightforward, context wise.

Personally, I understood quite straightly what frank k meant by "equated". Namely that kāya is linked to rūpin. And that rūpi (rūpin) — besides the meaning of "form or shape" — can also mean "having... material qualities, possessed of ... body or matter).

Maybe frank k should have rather used a synonym like" compare" or "liken" — or something like "correlated".
However, "equated" spoke for itself, as far as correlating kāya with (a most probable) physical bodily matter (in this case).

-----

Again, kāya is the ci in action — mental & physical (in and for itself).
Highly correlated with rūpa, since the nāmarūpa nidāna .
.
.