I did some detailed study and analysis on this. I can provide links if interested.
Sujato justifies (erroneously) his 3rd jhāna "sukhaṁ ca kāyena patisamvedeti" as "personally experienced" (effectvely removing any possibility of the physical body), by using the 8 vimokkha similar to what you allude to below.
The problem is, the third jhāna does not say "kāya sakkhi" or "kāyena phustiva", in which there would be stronger case to translate "kāyena sukhaṁ ca patisamvedeti" the same way one does for the former two.
If Sujato translated all 3 phrases literally, then there would be no problem. "body witness", "touched with body", etc. And if commentarial literature then stipulated what it believed body meant in each instance, then that's fine. But by overtranslating and overinterpreting according to his agenda (and Sujato is not basing his interpretation on the authority of the cmy), he is hypocritcally violating his own translation standards on principle of least meaning.
As I argued in detail in my essay, just as 'dhamma eye' arising, one 'seeing 5 aggregates as empty', etc., already there is much precedent that the hearer (of on oral tradition) or reader in the modern era is expected to be able to know the difference between figurative and literal.
I digress, back to 4 jhānas and 8 vimokkha, and 8 abhi ayatana.
Where the 4 jhānas map into the 8v and 8ay,
and then all the statements that say "kayena phusitva", don't overlap. AFAIK you can't find any suttas that say the 4 jhānas in reference to "kayena phusitva". You only see "kayena phusitva" when it's talking about formless attainments, such as MN 70.
3rd jhāna's "sukhaṁ ca kāyena patisamvedeti" is clearly using the same device as when suttas, cmy, and abhidhamma contrast "kāya" against "citta", or "mano", or "cetasika". That is, it's emphasizing the sukha is physical.
That the tika tries to harmonize the commentary "flesh and blood" kāya in the jhānas with Vism. "mind only kāya", if you read carefully, is still saying the Buddha's third jhāna formula is talking about a physical body.
In other words, the buddha doesn't talk about Vism.'s mind only jhāna body in the 3rd jhāna formula. The tika is only explaining how BOTH physical and mental body experience pleasure, but it doesn't say the Buddha in his words of the 3rd jhāna formula is referring to 'mind only body'. That's why you can claim there's no contradiction.
The question you should be asking yourself, if the Buddha has already established the precedent of using 'nama-kāya', why doesn't he use it in the 3rd jhāna formula? And remember, the disciples of the buddha didn't have a time machine for the tika guys to explain the Buddha also intended a mind only body for jhāna. They only have the benefit of hearing about the physical body pleasure.
A. Bhikkhu wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 2:54 pm
frank k wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:46 pm
AN 5.28, DN 2, MN 39, jhāna simile commentary – physical!
AN-a 5, 1. paṭhamapaṇṇāsakaṃ, 3. pañcaṅgikavaggo, 8. pañcaṅgikasuttavaṇṇanā, para. 1 ⇒
Chavi-maṃsa-lohit-ānugataṃ
skin, flesh, and blood [...]
Vism is contradicting Theravada commentary on this issue. That's the question you keep avoiding and trying to deflect with irrelevant red herrings [...]
Which ancient sangha do you believe? The Tv commentators who interpret DN 2 jhāna similes as a physical body in jhāna, or the Vism. Sangha who came a few hundred years later and redefined jhāna, kāya as a "body of mental aggregates"?
There is not doubt that
kāya can refer to the mental body (
nāmakāyo) also in the
suttas. For example in the context of the eight liberations (
aṭṭha vimokkhā), of which it is said: "He dwells in the eight liberations, having touched (or 'felt', 'experienced') with the body" (AN 4.87;
aṭṭha ca vimokkhe kāyena phusitvā viharati). The commentary explicitly states that the mental body is what is meant here. Again in a context where it is mentioned that they are immaterial, a bhikkhu wishes: "That which are these peaceful liberations, formless, having surpassed corporeality, may I dwell [therein], having experienced these with the [mental] body (MN 6;
ye te santā vimokkhā atikkamma rūpe āruppā, te kāyena phusitvā vihareyyaṃ).
As to the passage you adduced to point out a discrepancy within the tradition, that is:
idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi ... pe ... paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati. so imameva kāyaṃ vivekajena pītisukhena abhisandeti parisandeti paripūreti parippharati; nāssa kiñci sabbāvato kāyassa vivekajena pītisukhena apphuṭaṃ hoti.
“Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. He makes the rapture and happiness born of seclusion drench, steep, fill, and pervade
this body, so that there is no part of his
whole body that is not pervaded by the rapture and happiness born of seclusion" (Bodhi: AN 5.28).
The commentary explains "whole body" as you stated, but the respective
ṭīkā lets us know, in explaining the commentary's "nothing [of the body], indeed, is unpermeated" (
aphuṭaṃ nāma na hoti; referring to the skin, flesh, blood as indicated:
chavimaṃsalohita) that this is so "since consciousness-produced materiality is that which pervades wherever there is
kamma-produced materiality (i.e. the physical body) (
yattha yattha kammajarūpaṃ, tattha tattha cittajarūpassa abhibyāpanato. So, what we are down to again is which explanation we trust? Your own interpretation of
kāya or that of the commentaries and/or
ṭīkās?