DN 2: I perform a miracle, B. Sujato claims Buddha had an impoverished language and was forced to redefine 'body' as 'mi

[frank k]

DN 2: I perform a miracle, B. Sujato claims Buddha had an impoverished language and was forced to redefine 'body' as 'mind'
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... laims.html

[DooDoot]

The 3rd jhana only has sukha as its object. If sukha was experienced with the physical body sense base, the physical body would also be an object of the 3rd jhana, just like you are aware of your big toe when you painfully stub your big toe.

Since kaya does not literally mean "physical body", it appears Sujato is right and you are wrong in this context.

Even in the quote below, there is nothing indicating "kaya" means "physical body". Instead, it merely means "body" or "group" or "collection":

'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating. It has nine openings, nine un-lanced heads. Whatever would ooze out from it would be an uncleanliness oozing out, a stench oozing out, a disgust oozing out. Whatever would be discharged from it would be an uncleanliness discharging, a stench discharging, a disgust discharging. For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this body.

AN 9.15

[Dhammanando]

DN 2: I perform a miracle, B. Sujato claims Buddha had an impoverished language and was forced to redefine 'body' as 'mind'

When translating the phrase sukhañca kāyena paṭisaṁvedeti, a translator who's convinced that it's the rūpakāya that's referred to and wishes the translation to unambiguously convey this, might use a rendering like:

"... he experiences bliss with the [physical] body."

While a translator who's convinced that it's the nāmakāya (as the commentaries hold) and wishes to unambiguously convey this, might use:

"... he experiences bliss with the [mental] body."

But Ven. Sujāto hasn't opted for either of these. Instead he's taken a third way:

"... personally experiencing the bliss."

To translate kāyena (lit. "with the body") as "personally" is to treat it as an idiomatic expression in which the particular component(s) of personality that is/are doing the experiencing is/are left unspecified. As such, it's a translation that can neither be reduced to, nor equated with, the nāmakāya or the rūpakāya reading.

This much ought to be obvious to you, for in your post you have yourself quoted Sujāto as saying that kāya is here "a metaphor for the wholeness and directness of experience."

That being so, the "take away" in your post:

So basically B. Sujato is claiming the Buddha had no choice but to redefine 'body' as 'mind', and could only use inadequate and misleading similes in DN 2 that seem to unequivocally say that the sukha pleasure of third jhana is felt with the physical body.

seems to completely miss the mark. Translating kāyena as "personally" isn't redefining anything as anything. The proper way to challenge Sujāto's translation, if that's your aim, would be to make a case for why kāyena ought not to be treated as an idiomatic expression.

[frank k]

...
seems to completely miss the mark. Translating kāyena as "personally" isn't redefining anything as anything. The proper way to challenge Sujāto's translation, if that's your aim, would be to make a case for why kāyena ought not to be treated as an idiomatic expression.

I understand what you're saying, and the next time I revise the article I'll make a point to do exactly that (why kayena is not idiomatic there), but effectively, that's what Sujato is doing, redefining kaya where the Buddha was explicitly qualifying sukha as felt with the physical body, to suddenly there's no physical body mentioned at all. It doesn't have to be equatable with nama-kaya to be redefining 'body' as 'not body'. In a strict sense, you're right, but the reality of what he's doing is redefining kaya to make the sutta words match his interpretation of jhana.

[DooDoot]

I understand what you're saying...

Unlikely. Consider AN 9.24 below:

“Mendicants, there are nine abodes of sentient beings. What nine?

There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. This is the first abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first absorption. This is the second abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance [2nd jhana]. This is the third abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory [3rd jhana]. This is the fourth abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that are non-percipient and do not experience anything [4th jhana], such as the gods who are non-percipient beings. This is the fifth abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form. With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite space. This is the sixth abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have been reborn in the dimension of infinite consciousness. This is the seventh abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they have been reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is the eighth abode of sentient beings.

There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of nothingness. They have been reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the ninth abode of sentient beings.

These are the nine abodes of sentient beings.”

Based in your personal ideas FrankK:

1. There are diverse physical bodies in the 1st jhana

2. Unified physical bodies in the 2nd and 3rd jhana.

3. No physical body in the 4th jhana.

[frank k]

All courteous inquiries and questions will be answered

If I don't respond to a comment or question of yours, it's for one of the following reasons:

* That forum software has a poor or nonexistent notification system so I'm not even aware someone added a new comment or response to a message thread

* The question requires too long of an answer and I don't have time to respond. If I know for sure I don't have time or interest in responding, I'll respond promptly to let you know that. If you never hear from me, it's because either I intended to respond and postponed and then forgot about it, or I never saw your comment.

* The question comes from someone with a long track record of being discourteous, dishonorable, disingenuous in discussions. If I ignore someone intentionally, you can be sure that I've already given them at least three chances, and no more time will be wasted on my end. That said, if someone is sincere in asking forgiveness and understanding their transgressions and ceasing wrong behavior, then that's the ideal scenario and I'm happy to start friendship anew.

* If you think a time wasting troll asked a legitimate Dharma question and feel that I should respond, contact me on the link below or ask the question again in the discussion thread under your name so I see the question.

* When it comes to protecting the true Dharma, I'll never turn down a legitimate question. If I don't know, I'll say right away I don't know. If I need time to research, I'll say I need time. If I've already answered the question previously, I'll provide a link.



The best way to contact me is here
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/p/ ... nters.html

[DooDoot]

* When it comes to protecting the true Dharma, I'll never turn down a legitimate question.

The best way to contact me is here
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/p/ ... nters.html

It appears this blog & blogger are not in a position to answer questions about true dhamma but, instead, are in need of constant instruction & correction. In summary, AN 9.24 appears to thoroughly refute the imaginary notion "kaya" in jhana refers to the physical body.

[confusedlayman]

* When it comes to protecting the true Dharma, I'll never turn down a legitimate question.

The best way to contact me is here
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/p/ ... nters.html

It appears this blog & blogger are not in a position to answer questions about true dhamma but, instead, are in need of constant instruction & correction. In summary, AN 9.24 appears to thoroughly refute the imaginary notion "kaya" in jhana refers to the physical body.

yes, it refers only to mental thing

[BrokenBones]

* When it comes to protecting the true Dharma, I'll never turn down a legitimate question.

The best way to contact me is here
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/p/ ... nters.html

It appears this blog & blogger are not in a position to answer questions about true dhamma but, instead, are in need of constant instruction & correction. In summary, AN 9.24 appears to thoroughly refute the imaginary notion "kaya" in jhana refers to the physical body.

yes, it refers only to mental thing

The insertion of 2nd & 3rd & 4th 'jhana' into the sutta is just a little bit naughty... tut tut.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/vimutta ... sness/amp/

The above translation equates with Bhikkhu Bodhi's.

The Sutta refutes nothing but the doctoring of it suggests so much.

[DooDoot]

The insertion of 2nd & 3rd & 4th 'jhana' into the sutta is just a little bit naughty... tut tut.

1st jhana is not literally mentioned either in the Pali, as follows:

Santi, bhikkhave, sattā nānattakāyā ekattasaññino, seyyathāpi devā brahmakāyikā paṭhamābhinibbattā.

There are beings diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first state of production.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.24/pli/ms

paṭhama
adjective
first; foremost; former

abhinibbatti
feminine
production

Therefore, Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation is not literal, including his dodgy translation of "ābhinibbattā" as "reborn". "Abhinibbattā" means "production" or possibly "state of production or produced state". Therefore, if the insertion of 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhana is naughty then so is Bhikkhu' Bodhi's insertion of "1st". In case you missed your own contradiction, it is below:

(2) “There are beings that are different in body but identical in perception, such as the devas of Brahmā’s company that are reborn through the first [jhāna]. This is the second abode of beings.

https://vimutta173599400.wordpress.com/ ... ciousness/

But the language in the sutta refers to the jhanas, as found in MN 1, AN 4.123, etc. I doubt one illiterate in sutta and relying with blind faith on the unreliable Bhikkhu Bodhi can judge what is "naughty" and "doctoring ".

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Conqueror as the Conqueror... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

MN 1

"Monks, there are these four types of individuals to be found existing in the world. Which four?

"There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara[1] devas.[2] The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Subhakinha[3] devas. The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Vehapphala[4] devas. The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.

"These are four types of individuals to be found existing in the world."

AN 4.123

In conclusion, BrokenBones, your post is again broken by its own contradiction, illogicalness, but, most of all, a plain ignorance of sutta & Dhamma. Also, being an errand boy for Bhikkhu Bodhi won't help much either because Bhikkhu Bodhi appears often incorrect. In short, you should fight your own battles rather than make the personal kamma of bringing certain monks into disrepute.

[BrokenBones]

DootDoot... you take the biscuit... you really do. You sidetrack a thread... spout a load of inconsequential nonsense that does nothing at all to further your 'zombie' Jhana fixation and when you get called out for fiddling with a Sutta, you demand we get back on topic.

As for Bhikhu Bodhi inserting the word 'jhana' into the Sutta... I can forgive him. He is sometimes torn between what the Sutta says and what later teachings demands it says. He has brought the Buddha's teachings to the English speaking world and his works are to be lauded and rejoiced in. It does your reputation no good at all by reviling such a worthy individual in such a way.

If I am to be called out by you as Bhikkhu Bidhi's 'errand boy' then I am quite happy to labelled as such. I may not agree with him 100% of the time but I do for the most part and his service & learning is profound.

[DooDoot]

As for Bhikhu Bodhi inserting the word 'jhana' into the Sutta... I can forgive him. He

u have no idea about the sutta posted which includes no idea about VBBs translation. Worse you cannot know any intention you impute upon VBB. Recently there is a new species using this forum to cultivate false speech

[BrokenBones]

As for Bhikhu Bodhi inserting the word 'jhana' into the Sutta... I can forgive him. He

u have no idea about the sutta posted which includes no idea about VBBs translation. Worse you cannot know any intention you impute upon VBB. Recently there is a new species using this forum to cultivate false speech

Well I've got all the Sutta books he wrote so I certainly have some idea.

As for Imputing Bhikkhu Bodhi's intentions... he has openly said that he has infrequently gone with translations that he is not happy with, due to honour for his teacher and tradition. He has highlighted instances of this being the case.

'New species'... how disgusting. Did you know that there are 8 parts of the eightfold path?

You are plainly upset at having been caught tampering with a Sutta... you can't make Dhamma conform to what you wish it was.

DootDoot's fourth jhana... 'Kaya of mind' from head to toe you're 'avin a larf!

[DooDoot]

Well I've got all the Sutta books he wrote so I certainly have some idea.

Sorry but we have been chatting for most of the week. Light weight stuff; just like the reply about MN 128.

You are plainly upset at having been caught tampering with a Sutta... you can't make Dhamma conform to what you wish it was.

Unsubstantiated reply, offering no alternative explanation of the sutta. Keep cultivating what the Buddha said to not cultivate. Neither Bhikkhu Bodhi or myself tampered with any "jhana" in the sutta.

[BrokenBones]

Well I've got all the Sutta books he wrote so I certainly have some idea.

Sorry but we have been chatting for most of the week. Light weight stuff; just like the reply about MN 128.

So you shy away from the definition of fourth jhana? I guess you go with the first part but the similes seem to leave egg on your face.

And the last time I looked... inserting words into a Sutta that aren't originally there is called tampering.

As for Mn 128 I merely went off the part of the sutta that was posted... I'm not terribly interested in doing other people's legwork.