Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:24 pm
I feel the main problem with narrowing down the definition to nama-kaya alone is that you can't just have nama-kaya on its own, (barring the formless that is). There must be nama-rupa. You can't just have subject without object. According to paticca-samuppada, as long as there is consciousness, there is nama-rupa, both subject and
object. So in this case, what is the object (rupa)? It logically follows that it's one of the many meditation themes listed in the sutta, i.e. anapanasati, 32 body parts, 9 charnel-grounds observations, 4 great elements, postures, etc.
The thing about this is, I'm pretty open to accepting an interpretation in which the reading is both nama-kaya and rupa-kaya, because it doesn't really seem to matter. If one is drenching the nama-kaya with piti-sukha, they're also drenching the rupa-kaya and vice versa. You can't really just have one without the other. If it's done right, there won't be any part of the nama-rupa that isn't filled with piti-sukha. I think this jhana pericope likely explicity states "kaya" here because the imagery is relevant within kayagatasati and anapanasati, but regardless, if piti-sukha is felt, it is both in the body and
mind, so the point is a little moot.
The in-and out breathing here is a special object because the way it's felt and perceived defines how it is
as an object of our attention. The body (physical) is like that in that regards. When we contemplate it, it changes how it is
based on how we perceive it. If we perceive it as calm, then it's calm. We perceive the body as rapturous, the mind is also rapturous. There's a sort of feedback that the body gives the mind and vice versa and it's that very interaction that we're tuning into by practicing this way.