Hi Dmytro
Sorry, got my inflections mixed up. The
karajakāya is in the singular.
This is how I interpret the
karajakāya mentioned in the Karajakāya Sutta. Firstly, the entire
vagga discussed kamma performed bodily (
kāyakamma), verbally (
vacīkamma) and by the mind (
manokamma) - Saṃsappanīya Sutta, AN 10.5.1.6. The same broad division of kamma into 3 runs through suttas 1 to 8 and 10 of the vagga. The Karajakāya Sutta is the only sutta in the
vagga that does not divide the kamma into bodily, verbal or mental; instead it addresses only "
iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ" (bad kamma done by this
karajakāya).
I take the
kāya in
karajakāya as not referring to the physical body, but as meaning "group", ie the group of 3 mediators of the 3 types of kamma. If this
karajakāya were limited to only the physical body, we will have a problem accounting for
manokamma. What else drew me to make this connection is the fact that the Karajakāya Sutta discusses the
brahmaviharas as means to overcoming the results of
pāpakamma. Now, I do not take this proposition as being limited to only
kāyakamma. I refer to other suttas, eg DN 13 and SN 42.8 which also make the same point regarding the
brahmaviharas as means of overcoming the future results of "limited kamma". No distinction is drawn between bodily kamma, verbal kamma or mental kamma in these suttas. This leads me to interpret
karajakāya as "
collection born of/arising from actions". I can agree with you that
karajakāya belongs squarely in "old kamma", which the Kamma Sutta, SN 35.145 would identify with the 6
indriyas/ayatanas of vision, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. The
kāya in
karajakāya seems therefore to also be capable of being read to refer to the set/collection of the 6
indriyas/ayatanas.
Which brings us nicely to the crux of the issue - were the Commentators saying that all six
indriyas (or all 3 mediators of kamma) were saturated with Jhanic
pitisukha, or only Mind? (This would be difficult to reconcile with the Vsm explanation of this in Chap IV, para 175). I think it is possible to interpret the
kāya similes as pointing to all 6
indriyas, but there will be problems if we interpret this as Jhanic
pitisukha being felt by the eye, ears, nose and tongue
during the Jhana. This will run counter to Geoff's original argument -
There are a couple of points worth mentioning here. Firstly, these five strands of sensual pleasure are all external sensory objects. As such, they correspond to objects within the five external sensory spheres (bāhirāyatanā). Thus, these five sensory objects do not include in-and-out breathing, which is considered internal, nor the internal felt-sense of the body.
If I now agree with you that Jhanic
pitisukha is
phoṭṭhabba, we run into the greater problem of MN 43. Only the physical body can "contact"
phoṭṭhabba. None of the other 4 indriyas of eye, ear, nose and tongue could possibly "contact"
phoṭṭhabba/tactility.
Let us accept for argument's sake that the said 4
indriyas were not intended by the Commentators to be included within
karajakāya. Let's test the hypothesis that Jhanic
pitisukha is
phoṭṭhabba/tactility.
Firstly, I do not quite know what to make of Geoff's original assertion above. Firstly, I thought that there are 6 (not only 5) external sensory objects. In the typical ayatana scheme, dhammas count as an external
ayatana (eg DN 22 or SN 35.4). As for internal
ayatanas, again the typical
ayatana scheme identifies the 6 internal
ayatanas with the 6
indriyas of seeing, hearing, tasting, olfaction, touch and mind. I am not aware of any sense object whatsoever being described in the suttas as being an internal
ayatana. Might you know of any sutta that actually identifies in-&-out breathing as "internal"?
We are still back to square one as to what
kāmā in the 1st Jhana pericope means. I could of course take the easy way of citing the CPD entry on
kāma. Taking Geoff's citation of AN 6.63 does not really help -
Continuing with AN 6.63, we can see that a clear distinction is made between sensual pleasures (kāmā) and the five strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā). After defining the five strands of sensual pleasure in the previous passage, the Buddha states:
But monks, these are not sensual pleasures (kāmā). They are called strands of sensual pleasure (kāmagunā) in the discipline of the noble ones.
The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s beautiful things are not sensual pleasures.
The resolve of passion is a man’s sensual pleasure.
The beauties remain as they are in the world,
While the wise remove desire for them.
Here the Buddha is differentiating sensual pleasures (kāmā) which are the resolve of passion (saṅkapparāga), from the beautiful external sensory objects of that passion, pertaining to which the wise remove desire.
The Pali for the verse runs -
Saṅkapparāgo purissa kāmo,
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandanti.
Geoff translates the nominative singular of
kāma (ie
kāmo) as "sensual pleasure" (singular). It can also be legitimately translated as "sensual desire" (singular) - see the PED and CPD entries. I leave it to you to decide which reading is better, Geoff's reading that
saṅkapparāga be conflated with an external sense object, or
saṅkapparāga being identified with sensual desire.
Geoff also cites MN 13, as authority for the proposition that -
MN 13 Mahādukkhakhandha Sutta tells us that the strands of sensual pleasure are the allure of kāma.
Actually, MN 13 states that the pleasure that arises in dependence on the 5 cords of sensual pleasure are the allure of
kāmā (plural!) (
Ko ca bhikkhave kāmānaṃ assādo?). In fact, if one looks at an extended version of the allure, gratification, drawback and escape theme, SN 35.13 makes it explicit that the
kāmā are just
rūpā, saddā, gandhā, rasā and phoṭṭhabbā.
Would there be room for
phoṭṭhabbā to be cognised when one is supposed to be secluded from the kāmā in 1st Jhana?
Thank you for your patience.