The meaning of Kaya

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
ToVincent
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

The meaning of Kaya

Post by ToVincent » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm

May I again be a pain to relate kāya to the god "Ka", in middle-late Vedic philosophy.
Ka+iya (Ka + ॰ईय -īya, the latter forms possesives in Sanskrit) - lit. "with what belongs to Ka".

Prajāpati is the Self (ŚBr. 4.5.9.2).
A Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce [selves] (ŚBr. 6.1.1.8).
"Ka" is Prajāpati...
Moreover, the word "ka" is a name of hapiness.
prajāpatir vai kaḥ...
atho sukhasya vā etan nāmadheyaṃ kam iti
GopBr. 2.1.22
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the (wrong) view of a Self/selves that is pervasive and continuous - Moreover, a Self/self (Ka) that is a source of hapiness.
The Buddha says that this Self/self cannot exist in paṭiccasamuppāda, because there is impermanence - and impermanence is not continuity; and that non-continuity is dukkha.
The opposite of the late Brāhmṇa/Āraṇyaka view of a continuous (pervasive) Self/self that brings hapiness.

If the god "Ka" was still to exist in paṭiccasamuppāda - that is to say, if the word "kāya" had not passed in the current language as the somewhat vital function of the body (sarira) - the only happiness of "Ka", would be the happiness derived from the breath (prāṇa) - viz. pīti and sukha - not from "Ka" as the Self/self.

What does the breath has to do with all that?

Kāya, (what belongs to Ka), is closely related to the organs of the self.
"Organs", or more precisely here, their "vital functions" (speech, sight, hearing, mind (mano)), in Indian Vedic philosophy, encompasses also prāṇa (breath) (ChUp. 5.1.6).
Breath is the highest organ. The one that never stops during the life time. One can lose his sight, or hearing, and not die - but not breath.
"The one,after whose departure the body (sarira), appears to be in the worst shape, is the greatest among you", says Prājapati, to the vital functions competing between them.
So breath wins.

The attributes of Ka are these organs, with their vital functions. And the highest is breath. And speech is pretty closely related to it.

In Buddhism, the word Kāya deals with what does not pertain to eye, ear, nose, mouth and mind (mano). And it is definitely breath (prāṇa*).
*Prāṇa, in the singular refers to breath - and in the plural, to the vital functions/powers at large.
Yet, Kāya is also what "glues" all the organs.

Kāya might be better understood in the following:
“When he feels a feeling extending as far as the body (kāya), he understands: ‘I feel a feeling extending as far as the body.’ When he feels a feeling extending as far as the principle of life (jīva), he understands: ‘I feel a feeling extending as far as the principle of life.’
He understands: ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily (sarīra) remains will be left.
“so kāyapariyantikaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno kāyapariyantikaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmīti pajānāti, jīvitapariyantikaṃ vedanaṃ vedayamāno jīvitapariyantikaṃ vedanaṃ vedayāmīti pajānāti.
kāyassa bhedā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sītībhavissanti, sarīrāni avasissantīti pajānāti.
SN 12.51
Kāya is not the physical body (sarīra) - Kāya is the vital function that holds the organs at large.
Kāya is (somewhat) to sarira, what sight is to the eye. I say somewhat; because kāya has a wider range than a simple internal ayātana. It has a magnitude that goes beyond the Buddhist "world" (of senses).

In Buddhism, breath is a crucial factor. It comes right in Saṅkhāra nidāna, the second link of Paṭiccasamuppāda - In first place.
It is a bodily formation (kāyasaṅkhāra). And it leads to feeling.
This is what ānāpānasati is supposed to reenact; at satta's (man) level.

---

Let's get to the first tetrad in ānāpānasati.

The fact that the Saṃyukta-āgama (SA 810) insists on the fact that the breath is the exclusive object of mindfulness in the first tetrad, is not as evident in SN 51.3.
What is the scope of that object of mindfulness, is breath and the "body" (kāya).
They are intricately interrelated through the saṅkhāra (kāyasaṅkhāra).

The noteworthy difference in relation to the third step of ānāpānasati, is that whereas the MN 18 (nikaya) speaks of experiencing the “whole body”, the SA 815 (agama) counterpart speaks of experiencing “all bodily formations”.
But there is no conflict into that.
Sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmīti sikkhati.

Sikkhati
Pali: Trains oneself
Sanskrit: śikṣati - inflected form - शक् śak) is a desiderative verb that has the underlying meaning of "desiring to be able to". It is about training, with the "desire to be able to".
Paṭisaṃvedī
Pali: Experiences.
Sanskrit:
√ विद् vid : to know | to understand | to have the feel of, to be conscious of | to see.
प्रतिसंविद् pratisaṃvid : An accurate knowledge of the particulars of anything.
प्रतिसंवेदिन् pratisaṃvedin [prati+saṃ+vedin] : being conscious of anything, feeling, experiencing.
vedin: e.g. āyurvedin = expert in ayurveda (medecine).
However, the most important thing here, in the first tetrad, is that one gets delight (pīti), and pleasure (sukha) from seclusion.
This is not in ānāpānasati per se; but in the Jhāna process. But it will explain better what "established mindfulness in front of him" means.
What does seclusion (viveka) mean?
Viveka means: Discrimination between the external & the internal - separation from the external - and then seclusion in the internal. https://justpaste.it/17880
“Desiring seclusion you entered the woods,
Yet your mind gushes outwardly.
...
“You must abandon discontent, be mindful.

“vivekakāmosi vanaṃ paviṭṭho,
atha te mano niccharatī bahiddhā.
...
aratiṃ pajahāsi sato.
SN 9.1 (SA 1333)
Why is it so important to relate Ānāpānasati with Jhāna?
First, because it is the seclusion (viveka) that brings the pīti & sukha paṭisaṃvedī (5th & 6th steps).
And secondly, because, it is this the pīti & sukha paṭisaṃvedī that brings the ultimate concentration of the 11th step (samādha citta).

In other words, seclusion, (which encompasses mindfulness, abandonment of discontent, etc with the external), is a prerequisite to experiencing feeling. And contentment (pīti & sukha,) "born of seclusion" is the prerequisite to know the citta. Samādhi (https://justpaste.it/zcue) of breath, being the goal and the unifying thread towards that goal of "perceiving the feeling" (aka citta).

All this to say that, by sticking strictly to the commonalities in the Nikayas & the Agamas (in the EBTs), one can understand exactly what is the process to follow. And, by that, reach right concentration.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3283
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by DooDoot » Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:04 am

ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is the (wrong) view of a Self/selves that is pervasive and continuous
Where do the suttas have this definition of 'sakkaya'? Thanks. Sa ('self') kkaya ('group' of aggregates) ditthi (view as) = view aggregates as self.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
The Buddha says that this Self/self cannot exist in paṭiccasamuppāda, because there is impermanence - and impermanence is not continuity; and that non-continuity is dukkha.
Buddha says the view or idea of self arises from paṭiccasamuppāda.
And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging. SN 12.2
This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. SN 12.15
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
What does the breath has to do with all that?
MN 118 says the breath is a kaya (group) among other kaya (groups).
I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. MN 118
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Breath is the highest organ. The one that never stops during the life time. One can lose his sight, or hearing, and not die - but not breath.
The breath sustains life, i.e., the whole group (kaya) of the five aggregates. Therefore, it is called the 'kaya sankhara'. However, it does more than sustain life. The quality of breath determines the quality of mind & body.
In-&-out breaths the kaya sankhara. MN 44
So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes, and may my mind, through lack of clinging, be released from fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. SN 54.8
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Kāya is not the physical body (sarīra) - Kāya is the vital function that holds the organs at large....Kāya is to the sight, what the physical body is to the eye.
Kaya means 'group' or 'collection'. Kaya is the 'group' or 'collection' of the five aggregates.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
In Buddhism, breath is a crucial factor. It comes right in Saṅkhāra nidāna, the second link of Paṭiccasamuppāda - In first place.
The second nidana has three sankhara; (i) kaya; (ii) vaci & (iii) citta.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
It is a bodily formation (kāyasaṅkhāra).
What does the term "a bodily formation" supposed to mean? :shrug:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
And it leads to feeling.
There remains some 'feeling' in some immaterial absorptions but no perception of breath therefore here kāyasaṅkhāra does not lead to feeling.
Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. MN 111
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Let's get to the first tetrad in ānāpānasati. The fact that the Saṃyukta-āgama (SA 810) insists on the fact that the breath is the exclusive object of mindfulness in the first tetrad, is not as evident in SN 51.3.
There a numerous conflicting versions of Anapanasati in the Agama; transmitted hundreds of years after the Buddha. These are best ignored.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
What is the scope of that object of mindfulness, is breath and the "body" (kāya).
The breath is one of many kaya; such as rupa-kaya & nama-kaya.
I say that this is a certain body among the bodies, namely, in-breathing and out-breathing. MN 118
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
They are intricately interrelated through the saṅkhāra (kāyasaṅkhāra).
The above would be better clarified in more detail .
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
The noteworthy difference in relation to the third step of ānāpānasati, is that whereas the MN 18 (nikaya) speaks of experiencing the “whole body”, the SA 815 (agama) counterpart speaks of experiencing “all bodily formations”.
But there is no conflict into that.
The word 'sabba' in MN 118 does not necessarily mean 'whole'. The word 'sabba' generally means 'all'.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmīti sikkhati.

However, the most important thing here, in the first tetrad, is that one gets delight (pīti), and pleasure (sukha) from seclusion.
Piti & sukha are the second tetrad.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
This is not in ānāpānasati per se; but in the Jhāna process.
Not necessarily. The commentaries & many teachers refer to three levels of concentration: momentary, neighbourhood & attainment, where each level can experience piti & sukha. Not every experience of piti & sukha in meditation is jhana (attainment concentration).
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
What does seclusion (viveka) mean? Viveka means: Discrimination between the external & the internal - separation from the external - and then seclusion in the internal. https://justpaste.it/17880
“Desiring seclusion you entered the woods,
Yet your mind gushes outwardly.
...
“You must abandon discontent, be mindful.

“vivekakāmosi vanaṃ paviṭṭho,
atha te mano niccharatī bahiddhā.
...
aratiṃ pajahāsi sato.
SN 9.1 (SA 1333)
This interpretation here appears quite imaginary.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
Why is it so important to relate Ānāpānasati with Jhāna? First, because it is the seclusion (viveka) that brings the pīti & sukha paṭisaṃvedī (5th & 6th steps).
Ānāpānasati may not be jhana although it is a practise that trains in all of the skills necessary for jhana. Since the breathing is experienced in every stage of Ānāpānasati, it appears to not be jhana but neighbourhood concentration. In jhana, the breath is not felt because in jhana there are only five factors. In jhana, the breath is said to be replaced by a mental image (nimitta), which is ekkagatta.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
And secondly, because, it is this the pīti & sukha paṭisaṃvedī that brings the ultimate concentration of the 11th step (samādha citta).
8th step is calming rapture & happiness (citta sankhara. MN 44 defines feelings as citta sankhara). Therefore, the 11th step is free from rapture & happiness. The 11th step (on the level of neighbourhood concentration) seems similar to the 4th jhana (on the level of attainment concentration). 11th step sounds like purity of concentration without rapture, happiness or gladness.
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 pm
In other words, seclusion, (which encompasses mindfulness, abandonment of discontent, etc with the external), is a prerequisite to experiencing feeling. And contentment (pīti & sukha,) "born of seclusion" is the prerequisite to know the citta. Samādhi (https://justpaste.it/zcue) of breath, being the goal and the unifying thread towards that goal of "perceiving the feeling" (aka citta).
Seclusion sounds like seclusion from the five external senses & seclusion from the five hindrances. I already posted, in MN 118, pīti & sukha are calmed before the 3rd tetrad. Therefore, there is no piti & sukha in the 3rd tetrad. The only feelings are abhippamodayaṃ & equinimity.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:56 am

How fortunate that this question concerning Kaya is already here! For I came to ask a question about sakkāya. I was reading something online, I wot not what, and I found that sakkāya is a compound of sat+kaya, with sat meaning something to do with existence and kaya referring to the aggregates. (Actually it was this article.) Yet sakkāya-ditthi is usually translated "self-view" or "personality-view" so this seemed strange.

I thought, therefore, to look up the word in the Concise Pali-English Dictionary by A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera. (Not realizing that his definition was also supplied in that article. Lol.)

And his entry says

sakkāya : [m.] the existing body.

Wait...what? So in reality, sakkāya-ditthi is not "Self-view" but "the existing body view"? Or in other words, "the view that I exist as the body." I.e. the view that I am merely the khandas.

Unfortunately, in the same dictionary

sakkāyadiṭṭhi : [f.] heresy of individuality.

Based on his definition of sakkāya that definition for sakkāyadiṭṭhi has to be seen as wholly erroneous. The problem clearly has to do with a view about the body not individuality.

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by Dmytro » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:50 am

Hi David,
davidbrainerd wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:56 am
I thought, therefore, to look up the word in the Concise Pali-English Dictionary
I won't recommend consulting this dictionary for research.

I've opened up a new topic on "Sakkāya": https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=30321

Best wishes, Dmytro

ToVincent
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by ToVincent » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:40 pm

I have already said in viewtopic.php?f=23&t=30217&hilit=sat+kaya#p436625 , that saṃ might be replaced by sat. Only if the latter bears the meaning of "enduring, lasting" (Rv.).

Yet, the problem remains with how we should define Kāya.
Sat or saṃ or whatever, does not help us define the meaning and extent of Kāya, as "body".
Sat, in sakkāya (sat+kāya) just means the "continuous" body. And this is anyway, what the pre-Buddhist middle & late Vedic Self/self is all about. Viz. continuous.
http://sanskritdictionary.com/sat/246760/1
When there is the meaning of "existing", it usually refers to the "self-existent or Universal Spirit" as seen here:
http://sanskritdictionary.com/sat/246766/1

Now, I could not agree more with Bhikkhus Bodhi & Thanissaro that:
"Sakkāya-diṭṭhi accordingly becomes “identity view,” the view of a self existing, either behind or among the five aggregates".
Although I would reformulate it as:
"Sakkāya-diṭṭhi accordingly becomes “identity view,” the view of a continuous Self/self, either behind or among the five aggregates".
And that Self/self is just Ka.

One must understand the notion of Atta (Atman) >> Brahman >> Prājapati (Ka) in Indian philosophy.
As far as "what belong to Atta" (attaniya) is concerned, SN 35.85 might be of some help.
https://justpaste.it/18h72
As far as "what belong to Ka" (Kā+iya - Kāya), is concerned, one must see Ka (viz. Prājapati), as this Atta becoming "creatures". The continuous, (eternal and unchanging nature) of the Self/self - from Atman to Ka; and back to Atman.
This has been lengthily discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=30171&p=436609&hil ... al#p436609
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=30217&p=436625&hil ... al#p436625

Self/self is by definition nicca and sukha, and therefore anything which is anicca and dukkha cannot be Self/self.
And Ka, is supposed to be nicca; whose name, moreover, means sukha (see the above GopBr. extract).
While, in Buddhism, things are supposed to be anicca and dukkha.

Now, concerning The MN 44 extract - and although I would not rely too much on that probably late MN 44 (according to Sujato) - let see what that could probably mean:
These five aggregates affected by clinging are called identity by the Blessed One.
pañcupādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā'ti.

It means exactly what was said before; namely that the five clinging-aggregates are called "a continuous Ka" (sakkāyo) - viz. a continuous Self/self. Which is a wrong view.
In other words; appropriating the Khandhas as self - like in SN 22.47 (https://justpaste.it/vyhx , to which I constantly refer in this forum) - is a wrong view.
Note that the Madhyama āgama version, does not list saṅkhāras in the aggregates.

Yet, it does not mean that the definition of Kāya should be circumscribed to the khandhas. It only means that this appropriation of the khandhas, has just someone identifying himself, with something that would look like a continuous Self/self (like it was believed in the middle & late Vedic creed).
These five aggregates affected by clinging are called a "continuous self" by the Blessed One.
That's what is meant here. And that is impossible for two reasons.
1. The khandhas are not "ours". (see here: https://justpaste.it/1ac3r)
2. There is impermanence - viz. discontinuity.

Now, let's not forget that kāya is also an āyatana (one of the ajjhattikāni āyatanāni) - https://justpaste.it/18u12 (see notes).
And Kāya is even, much more than that.

Metta.

P.S.
This thread has been initiated by a moderator - forked from an answer I had given on another thread.
I am not very inclined to talk on the matter, as a dedicated thread.
Discussing the non-existence of satta; instead of the the non existence of a Self/self (Atman-Brahman-Prājapati(Ka)) - as it always end to be the case - is not what I intended to do.
Also, if kāya took the mere meaning of "khandha" in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra); that is their view - not mine.
So you will excuse me if I don't participate in it any longer. (Unless something interesting appears on the meaning of Kāya per se).
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

ToVincent
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by ToVincent » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:04 am
What does the term "a bodily formation" supposed to mean? :shrug:
I realize that I have not answered an interesting question of yours.
Sorry.

So first, let's us withdraw from the issue of the "self view", which has to do with identifying oneself with the attributes of Ka (Prājapati); that is to say the particular attributes of continuity and bliss, usually attached to Ka - and delve into the meaning of Kāya, as a word that has passed in the common language as "body". A "body" that has a much wider meaning than what we usually refer to as "body" in, at least, our western culture. Might there remain some attributes of what belongs to Ka (Kāya,) in the Buddhist word Kāya.

Don't worry, this problem does not occur only with people who study the Pali suttas; but also with the scholars of the Vedic/Sanskrit late Brāhmaṇa/Āraṇyaka & Upaniṣad texts.
For instance, in the latter texts, ātman is often referenced to a living, breathing (physical) body - and at the same time to a spiritual self for the inmost core of a human being - when it is not just used as a reflexive pronoun.
One has just to adjust with the context.

And our context now, is "breath" and "body" (kāya).

So let's see what is given in SN 41.6:

1. In-breathing and out-breathing are bodily, these things are bound to the body; that is why in-breathing and out-breathing are the bodily formation (of bodily formation) [synergy].
Assāsapassāsā kho āvuso visākha kāyikā ete dhammā kāyapaṭibaddhā. Tasmā assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro.


That's a pretty easy one.
What is meant here (at satta's level - viz. in saḷāyatana), is that one's breath is bound to the physical body. So one's breath is a "formation" of one's body - a bodily formation.
And we can also say that in & out breathes are the attribute of Kāya.
Note that, across Buddha's time, in the Gṛhya-Sūtra (GṛŚrS.) and the Mahābhārata (MBh.), saṃskāra (संस्कार) means "putting together".
In & out breath are the "putting together" of the body - viz. a formation of the body.
This kind of meaning - like "making up" - is also found in the ŚBr. or the BṛĀr.Up., etc.

We can conclude that the breath is a formation made by the body.

Now, as an āyatana, there is also a non-material side of Kāya.

The field of experience that is an āyatana, involves more than the physical part of the "organ" that is the physical "body".
There is just more than the sensory experience of "making a breath".
Here the body is also a sensory moment, of a bodily sensory experience, on the field of experience that is the body āyatana.
When a cool and nice wind passes on one's skin on a hot afternoon - and before one experiences a pleasant feeling - the field of experience, that is one's body āyatana, has a sensory moment - an arising of that field, proportional to the indriya one has at the time (restrained or not).
Again, I like to equate that to the metaphor of the āyatana as the muscle of the frog, that is triggered by the current (indriya) to produce a reflex (feeling). One does not apply the current to the reflex. It has to go through the muscle.
In the same way, the field of experience (āyatana) has a sensorial moment, proportional to the intensity of the indriya. And it is that sensorial moment that trigers the sensory experience (sense consciousness >> contact >> feeling, etc.

Note that one does not build a whole physical body every time he does experience a bodily sensory experience. It is just the sensorial moment of that bodily sensory experience (on the immaterial body āyatana) that arises and fades (impermanence).
This triggers a feeling (etc.) that is also impermanent.

Let's continue with the other formations, while we are at it. Because there is some riddle there.

In the third saṇkhāra (cittasaṅkhāro), we find the same "process" than with kāyasaṅkhāro:
3. Perception and feeling are mental, these things are tied to the mind; that is why perception and feeling are the citta formation (of citta formation).
Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā ete dhammā cittapaṭibaddhā. Tasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāroti.

Idem than in #1, citta is a maker of feelings & perceptions. And feelings and perceptions are the attributes of citta.
Feeling and perception are the "putting together" of the citta - viz. a formation of the citta.

Now the trick is in the #2
2. First one thinks abstractly (vitakka), and then thinks concretely (vicāra); then afterwards one breaks into a word; that is why abstract thinking & concrete thinking are the verbal formation.
Pubbe kho āvuso visākha vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṃ bhindati. Tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro.

We know for instance that "vacīkamma" means "deed by words".
And we have just seen that "kāyasaṅkhāra" means "formation by the body" - and "cittasaṅkhāra" means "formation by the citta".
However, we can't say that abstract thinking (vitakka) and concrete thinking (vicāra) are "formation by speech" (word).
Because the thinking comes before the word.
We don't have vitakkavicārasaṅkhāra, but vacīsaṅkhāra.
What to do then? How to explain this conundrum?

First, one has to notice that Vitakka & vicāra are not "ete dhammā vacīpaṭibaddhā". They are (really) not tied to the word (like it is the case for in&out breath and vedanā/sānna; which are tied to the body and to the citta, respectively).
Bhikkhu Bodhi translates paṭibaddhā as "dependent upon". It might help us understand better.
Vitakka & vicāra are not "dependent" on the word (vāca - vacī in cpds). It is the word (vāca) that is dependent on vitakka & vicāra.

The best, to my knowledge, would be to translate vacīsaṅkhāro as "formation (synergy) for the word".

______

Now, it might also mean that the in&out breath is a synergy for the body.
Or that vedanā&saññā is the synergy for the citta.
?

Metta.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3283
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by DooDoot » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:00 am

ToVincent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm
So let's see what is given in SN 41.6:

1. In-breathing and out-breathing are bodily, these things are bound to the body; that is why in-breathing and out-breathing are the bodily formation (of bodily formation) [synergy].
Assāsapassāsā kho āvuso visākha kāyikā ete dhammā kāyapaṭibaddhā. Tasmā assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro.


That's a pretty easy one.
What is meant here (at satta's level - viz. in saḷāyatana), is that one's breath is bound to the physical body. So one's breath is a "formation" of one's body - a bodily formation.
And we can also say that in & out breathes are the attribute of Kāya.
Note that, across Buddha's time, in the Gṛhya-Sūtra (GṛŚrS.) and the Mahābhārata (MBh.), saṃskāra (संस्कार) means "putting together".
In & out breath are the "putting together" of the body - viz. a formation of the body.
This kind of meaning - like "making up" - is also found in the ŚBr. or the BṛĀr.Up., etc.

We can conclude that the breath is a formation made by the body.
This interpretation appears to contradict the explanation of the vaci sankhara, which states:
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal sankhara.
For vaci sankhara, the vaci sankhara appears to be a cause and the speech appears to be an effect. Yet for kaya sankhara, which is the breath, you appear to say the body is a cause & the breath is an effect. Following common sense logic, I would suggest it is the body that is dependent upon the breathing rather than the breathing that is dependent upon the body because a body without breath is dead.

:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm
In the third saṇkhāra (cittasaṅkhāro), we find the same "process" than with kāyasaṅkhāro:
3. Perception and feeling are mental, these things are tied to the mind; that is why perception and feeling are the citta formation (of citta formation).
Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā ete dhammā cittapaṭibaddhā. Tasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāroti.

Idem than in #1, citta is a maker of feelings & perceptions. And feelings and perceptions are the attributes of citta.
Feeling and perception are the "putting together" of the citta - viz. a formation of the citta.
In Satipatthana, contemplation of feelings are not cittanupassana (contemplation of mind). Cittanupassana is contemplation of defilements, such as greed, hatred & delusion. Similarly, suttas about citta, such as Pabhassara Sutta, equate citta with defilements. Therefore, it appears again a contradiction to say feeling & perception are created by the citta. Again, your view appears to be suggesting citta is cause and feeling is effect; rather than feeling is cause & citta is effect, as described in MN 148 and many other suttas:
When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. MN 148
:candle:
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm
How to explain this conundrum?
Personally, there is no conundrum, for me, as I explained. For me, the common translations are questionable.
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:21 pm
First, one has to notice that Vitakka & vicāra are not "ete dhammā vacīpaṭibaddhā". They are (really) not tied to the word (like it is the case for in&out breath and vedanā/sānna; which are tied to the body and to the citta, respectively). Bhikkhu Bodhi translates paṭibaddhā as "dependent upon". It might help us understand better. Vitakka & vicāra are not "dependent" on the word (vāca - vacī in cpds). It is the word (vāca) that is dependent on vitakka & vicāra.
BB did not originally translate as "dependent upon" (eg. in his MN), unlike I have always translated it as "dependent upon". It is only later in his SN that BB used the translation of "dependent upon". Given BB originally made a mistake in his MN, I would suggest BB has made other mistakes in his translation of this. BB is in a conundrum, where contrary to dhamma principles, he believes perception & feeling are dependent upon the citta rather than the citta is dependent upon perception & feeling. Citta is thought; citta is defilement. Citta is dependent upon feeling & perception.
With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye. MN 18

33. Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard.

34. As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara.

35. Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness.

36. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness.

37. Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara.

38. Wisdom never becomes perfect in one whose mind is not steadfast, who knows not the Good Teaching and whose faith wavers.

39. There is no fear for an awakened one, whose mind is not sodden (by lust) nor afflicted (by hate), and who has gone beyond both merit and demerit

Cittavagga
Last edited by DooDoot on Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

ToVincent
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by ToVincent » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:23 am

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:00 am
This interpretation appears to contradict the explanation of the vaci sankhara, which states:
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal sankhara.
Good my friend!

This is what is called reasoning by the absurd. (So much absurdity can be said).

This is why I put at the end:
Now, it might also mean that the in&out breath is a synergy for the body.
Or that vedanā&saññā is the synergy for the citta.
?
It is obvious that the "putting together" is not a "by" from one to many; but a "for" from many to one.
The Vedic sacrifice is just about that. "Putting (parts) together", to make a whole (body). Saṅkhāra (saṃskāra,) is just about that. A synergy.

So now your question is answered.
What does the term "a bodily formation" supposed to mean? :shrug:
Why ask?
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3283
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: The meaning of Kaya

Post by DooDoot » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:28 am

This is what is called reasoning by the absurd. (So much absurdity can be said).
My post is conclusive & coherent. I suggest to read it with care. Perceptions & feeling are never included in/as 'citta'.
ToVincent wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:23 am
Why ask?
As I said, BB altered his original translations, which shows he considered his original translations to be inaccurate. As the Cittavagga states, the citta (mind) is something sodden (by lust), afflicted (by hate) and creates (views of) merit and demerit. The 'conditioning agent' (sankhara) or cause for these defiled citta is perception & feeling. Similarly, the cause of bodily states is the breathing. Based on established dhamma principles, the state of the mind/citta is obviously dependent upon perception & feeling; rather than perception & feeling are dependent upon the citta. Arahants liberate the citta (ceto vimutti; in MN 29; MN 30; MN 43, etc) but arahants are never free from perception & feeling (Iti 44, MN 37; MN 38; etc).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests