Driving at? 'Twas more a random musing after reading through a thread full of mentions of body and kaya (I know it's only vaguely and rather loosely related to the debate). Don't think I really had either side of the debate B. Brahm or Brahmali in mind when writing it (so can understand your mystification at whether I was for or against). Anyway, perhaps it was the wrong kind of thread for stray thoughts!
frank k wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:29 pm
What are you driving at? Are you saying because the breath is a foundational component of body, it's ok for VIsm. and Ajahn Brahm and B. Brahmali to reinterpret step 3 of 16 steps breath meditation to substitute breath for kaya/body?
suaimhneas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:17 pm
I think SN41.6 and MN44 imply at least a very close relationship between the breath and kaya. However, a close relationship between vicara vitakka and vaca (speech), and between feeling&perception and citta (mind) is also implied (given descriptions of the speech, bodily and verbal formations). They would seem to be the core/foundation level of these faculties.
Perception&feeling is not the entirety of citta (a subset), but without those it ceases.
Similarly vicara vitakka (whatever precisely that is; please let's not get into that now ) is not vaca but the base component.
Similiarly, the implications seems to be that breath is the key foundational component of kaya but, perhaps similarly, not its entirety (though maybe it's the last component standing before it ceases; doesn't seem surprising that it ceasing crops up in the fourth jhana).
frank k wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:29 pm
it's ok for VIsm. and Ajahn Brahm and B. Brahmali to reinterpret step 3 of 16 steps breath meditation to substitute breath for kaya/body?
Step 3 is primarily about the breath. MN 118 says:
I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies.
MN 118
FrankK. The above has been quoted to you, many times. Yet I do not recall you have ever responded to or commented on this quote. This quote from MN 118 continues to crucify your ideas.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
frank k wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:29 pm
What are you driving at? Are you saying because the breath is a foundational component of body, it's ok for VIsm. and Ajahn Brahm and B. Brahmali to reinterpret step 3 of 16 steps breath meditation to substitute breath for kaya/body?
suaimhneas wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:17 pm
I think SN41.6 and MN44 imply at least a very close relationship between the breath and kaya. However, a close relationship between vicara vitakka and vaca (speech), and between feeling&perception and citta (mind) is also implied (given descriptions of the speech, bodily and verbal formations). They would seem to be the core/foundation level of these faculties.
Perception&feeling is not the entirety of citta (a subset), but without those it ceases.
Similarly vicara vitakka (whatever precisely that is; please let's not get into that now ) is not vaca but the base component.
Similiarly, the implications seems to be that breath is the key foundational component of kaya but, perhaps similarly, not its entirety (though maybe it's the last component standing before it ceases; doesn't seem surprising that it ceasing crops up in the fourth jhana).
frank... when u in 4 jhana what is ur personal experience? can u tell me what happened or what u observed when in 4 jhana or 8 jhana from ur own direct awareness?
suaimhneas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:38 pm
Driving at? 'Twas more a random musing after reading through a thread full of mentions of body and kaya (I know it's only vaguely and rather loosely related to the debate). Don't think I really had either side of the debate B. Brahm or Brahmali in mind when writing it (so can understand your mystification at whether I was for or against). Anyway, perhaps it was the wrong kind of thread for stray thoughts!
By all means, feel free to share thoughts. I just wanted to clarify.
suaimhneas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:38 pm
Driving at? 'Twas more a random musing after reading through a thread full of mentions of body and kaya (I know it's only vaguely and rather loosely related to the debate). Don't think I really had either side of the debate B. Brahm or Brahmali in mind when writing it (so can understand your mystification at whether I was for or against). Anyway, perhaps it was the wrong kind of thread for stray thoughts!
By all means, feel free to share thoughts. I just wanted to clarify.
) is not vaca but the base component.
your ideas.
STED definitions 
Audio Tales in Pāli: ☸Dharma and Vinaya in many languages