Vism.'s Buddhaghosa says the sukha-pleasure is experienced by a physical body in third jhana!

[Ceisiwr]

This is highly unlikely as we have it in ancient Jaina inscriptions:

"...the famous
Hāthīgumphā inscription of king Khāravela of Kaliṅga at Udayagiri
(Orissa) from the second to first century BCE (Sircar 1965:213–21)
which offers what seems to be the first epigraphic evidence of bone
relic stūpa worship amongst the Jains, though no relic chamber was
found at the site of the “stūpa” which was excavated nearby.123 In line
14 of the inscription, the words kāyya-nisīdīya or kāya-nisīdiyā appear,
which Jayaswal and Banerji (1933:89) translated as “relic memorial,”
though the word kāya, corporeal, could also refer to the body of a living
monk and kāya-nisīdiyā to the caves at Udayagiri themselves,"

These dates are post-Buddha. Regarding the Jain texts, they aren't all that reliable. All of them are late, as the Jains lost most of their āgamas.

[Ceisiwr]

Regarding if the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga or any commentarial texts allows for the physical body to be experienced whilst in jhāna, perhaps Ven. Dhammanando can advise us further? He is certainly more knowledgeable regarding these matters than anyone who has commented thus far, myself included. Hopefully he has time to offer a reply.

[sphairos]

This is highly unlikely as we have it in ancient Jaina inscriptions:

"...the famous
Hāthīgumphā inscription of king Khāravela of Kaliṅga at Udayagiri
(Orissa) from the second to first century BCE (Sircar 1965:213–21)
which offers what seems to be the first epigraphic evidence of bone
relic stūpa worship amongst the Jains, though no relic chamber was
found at the site of the “stūpa” which was excavated nearby.123 In line
14 of the inscription, the words kāyya-nisīdīya or kāya-nisīdiyā appear,
which Jayaswal and Banerji (1933:89) translated as “relic memorial,”
though the word kāya, corporeal, could also refer to the body of a living
monk and kāya-nisīdiyā to the caves at Udayagiri themselves,"

These dates are post-Buddha. Regarding the Jain texts, they aren't all that reliable. All of them are late, as the Jains lost most of their āgamas.

Jaina tradition for sure and the texts likely are more ancient then the Buddhist ones.

"Loss of āgamas" is a legendary thing, trope, it shouldn't be taken for granted.

Buddhist texts are also post-Buddha and likely post-Jaina ones.

[Ceisiwr]

Jaina tradition for sure and the texts likely are more ancient then the Buddhist ones.

"Loss of āgamas" is a legendary thing, trope, it shouldn't be taken for granted.

As far as I'm aware the earliest Jain text is the Tattvārthasūtra, which is dated between 2nd - 4th Century A.D.

Buddhist texts are also post-Buddha and likely post-Jaina ones.

Some texts are post Buddha, others likely go back to that time. Whilst the Jains pre-date the Buddha we have no idea if they used kāya or not. Jain texts which use that word are all dated post-Buddha, so you can't rule out them borrowing it from the Buddhists (who had grown substantially in power and influence by then). The first time we see kāya being used proper it is in Buddhist texts, so it seems to be an innovation of the Buddha based on the available evidence.

[Coëmgenu]

He's talking about epigraphic, not scriptural, Jaina texts, I believe. Like the stone inscription on the Jain stūpa. These aren't on scrolls.

[Ceisiwr]

He's talking about epigraphic, not scriptural, Jaina texts, I believe. Like the stone inscription on the Jain stūpa. These aren't on scrolls.

Based on his references that still makes them post-Buddha.

[Coëmgenu]

I suppose it's possible the Jain stūpa is using Buddhist terminology.

[sphairos]

As far as I'm aware the earliest Jain text is the Tattvārthasūtra, which is dated between 2nd - 4th Century A.D.

But you are not aware.

Tattvartha is a relatively late Digambara text, but the bulk of the oldest part of the Śvetambara Āgamas are very old, linguistically older than any Buddhist text (and go back likely to the Mahāvira himself):

https://books.google.de/books?id=s6CgDw ... bi&f=false

Moreover, in them there is no mention of the Buddhists -- because at the time of their composition there were no Buddhists!



You have very superficial and very limited knowledge about these issues. You shouldn't be so headstrong in these matters, as you simply don't know what is discussed, philologically, linguistically, historically, philosophically, culturally etc. It takes long time to understand a bit these issues, not a couple of English articles and books, superficially read. Who are Gonda and Olivelle, for instance? I couldn't care less what they say, as I have read the same sources as them in original and studied the scholarship.

Jain tradition didn't and wouldn't borrow anything from the Buddhists and was MORE widespread and influential until Aśoka and a few centuries later.

The Buddha almost 100% didn't introduce the word "kāya".

Buddhist texts in their present form date to, the earliest, 5th century CE.

[Ceisiwr]

...

I can’t see the book atm. Which agama is claimed to be pre-Buddhist and do they use the word “kāya”?

Who are Gonda and Olivelle, for instance? I couldn't care less what they say, as I have read the same sources as them in original and studied the scholarship.

For someone who claims to have studied such matters I’m surprised that you don’t know who they are. I’m afraid like another forum member I am increasingly doubting your claims.

Buddhist texts in their present form date to, the earliest, 5th century CE.

Doubtful.

[sphairos]

For someone who claims to have studied such matters I’m surprised that you don’t know who they are. I’m afraid like another forum member I am increasingly doubting your claims.

You really seem to be getting more and more mentally dull due to your reckless plunge into the hardcore samatha practice. It's a figure of speech, I discussed Gonda's work in an exchange with you here on this forum a few months ago. I am just saying these are some personal opinions.

[ToVincent]

Don't worry! - Metoometoo has a technique.
It's called slandering.

As I already said, metoometoo can't stand that someone precedes him. So when cornered, metoometoo uses denigration — and goes as far as snitching on you, so as to silence you - (the suci's suttacentral episode).
Noble guy indeed.

-----

If you make a point, metoometoo, like all metoometoos, does not mind to pass off your point as his own; after having obviously criticized it, and denigrated you.

_______

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Metoometoo's scholarship:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In April 2020, Metoometoo tells us he hasn't read anything "Veda".
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36838&p=554469&hil ... nt#p554469

------

On May 2020, metoometoo is already aware of the different ways the Veda imagines self. And make us know that Buddha (the kshatriya,) didn’t grow up in a Vedic culture ?!?!?! ©

Calling me an amateur. Which I did appreciate, as the latin root of amateur is "love" - and therefore joked about it, since then.

Metoometoo, as you can see, shows already a great deal of professionalism - one month after "encountering" Veda.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=37219&p=561829&hil ... nt#p561829


On May 21 2020,
On the question that metoometoo asked me:
"What’s your background in Sanskrit and Vedic texts/lexicography?"
I asked him the same question — and this is his answer:
"Nothing in Sanskrit or Vedic texts. Science is my area."

------

On June 19 2020,
metoometoo makes us know that he has "read the principle Upanishads and "some" of the Rg Veda, among others".
Whoaw - Metoometoo is a genius - isn't he?
How (awe) some?

------

Now that metoometoo is almost a pundit in Veda and pre-Buddhist litterature — [although still mixing pre and post references], metoometoo doesnt refer any longer to Veda and Upanishads as "Veda and Upanishads" - but as vedāḥ & Upaniṣadaḥ.
Looks more donnish and erudite — doesn't it?

March 21
Metoometoo
"I'm not aware of anything in the vedāḥ... , nor in the Upaniṣadaḥ that say...."

First, metoometoo should know by now that the (early) Upanishads, are part of Veda (part of each three Vedas).
Therefore no need to mention the "anything in... nor in" — Veda will suffice (or the three Vedas).

Secondly, note that metoometoo is also deeply into Sanskrit.
https://sanskrit.inria.fr/cgi-bin/SKT/s ... veda&g=Mas

------

Etc., etc.

------

Indeed, all that metoometoo is good about, is to serve us with extracts from the scholarly... establishmentarianism.
Badly (personally) interpreting them.

Hence the denigrations.

____

Note also that metoometoo told us that kāya does not appear in the pre-Buddhist litterature.
!?!?!? ©
.
.

[Ceisiwr]

For someone who claims to have studied such matters I’m surprised that you don’t know who they are. I’m afraid like another forum member I am increasingly doubting your claims.

You really seem to be getting more and more mentally dull due to your reckless plunge into the hardcore samatha practice. It's a figure of speech, I discussed Gonda's work in an exchange with you here on this forum a few months ago. I am just saying these are some personal opinions.

You didn’t answer my question. Regarding your post it can easily be read as a statement of ignorance. It certainly doesn’t make someone “mentally dull” if they haven’t picked up upon your figure of speech. Posturing yourself as being superior to others seems to be a trait of yours. Something you share with the charming fellow above it seems. Regarding your former posts I obviously didn’t recall them.

your reckless plunge into the hardcore samatha practice

You misspelt “Right Samadhi”.

[skandha]

The nāmakāya.

yes and what it is?

In the Nettipakaraṇa is is the constituents of nāma + citta:

"Nāmakāyo nāma vedanā saññā cetanā cittaṁ phasso manasikāroti—ayaṁ nāmakāyoti" - Padaṭṭhānahāravibhaṅga (Ne 7)

On a sutta only basis it might just be the bodies of nāma: vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso and manasikāro.

Certainly this Nāmakāyo, these bodies of nāma require a rūpa to contain it into a coherent body, otherwise it's just a dispersion in space till no end. From the perspective of rūpa (form), or kāyo (body); we are already implying it's material spatial aspect, which to me has an evident quality of cohesion (water element). Of course the material aspect does not have to be solely about the physical five senses. Even if I say that the sukha of jhana is on the level of materiality, I would not say that the sukha is on account of the five physical senses, as the sukha of jhana is the non sensual sukha of nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ (other worldly pleasure).

[Ceisiwr]

Certainly this Nāmakāyo, these bodies of nāma require a rūpa to contain it into a coherent body, otherwise it's just a dispersion in space till no end.

You can have them without rūpa. Interestingly, your claim sounds similar to the attainment/realm of infinite space.

[skandha]

Certainly this Nāmakāyo, these bodies of nāma require a rūpa to contain it into a coherent body, otherwise it's just a dispersion in space till no end.

You can have them without rūpa. Interestingly, your claim sounds similar to the attainment/realm of infinite space.

There are the arupa realms which seems to indicate that it's possible to have nama without rupa.

However, the Buddha is saying in MN 102, that it is not possible to have consciousness without rupa.

...if any ascetic or brahmin should say this: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.