So, was it an oversight of the Buddha's? It's simply odd to find a way to work it in, when it isn't there in the first place and could have easily been clearly mentioned.
Perhaps an explanation might be to accept the inclusion of cittekaggatā
in MN 43 as being commentary, but commentary that is obvious from its occurrences elsewhere in the suttas? In any event, I’m happy to report that the Chinese parallel to MN 43, 大拘絺羅 MA 211 says the same –
is rendered as 一心.
If I had to guess why cittekaggatā
is missing from the Jhana pericopes, it may have been motivated by the concern that the pericopes serve to distinguish these mental states from "normal" consciousness. Its inclusion might have led to the inference that cittekaggatā
is not also a hallmark of well-established satipaṭṭhāna
, when other suttas indicate otherwise.
I've underlined some troublesome phrases. I'm simply pursuing the oddity of the idea that detachment from kaya lets one infuse kaya with pitisukha born of that very detachment. So, I think detachment still allows for contact, as in the phrase "he feels it detached" in SN 12.6, or MN 140.
Let’s get the technicalities out of the way first. The 1st Jhana periscope does not read vivicceva kāyā/kāyasmā
(quite secluded from the kāya
). It reads vivicceva kāmehi
(quite secluded from the kāmā
). The seclusion is from the 5 external āyatanā
, not from the internal āyatana
of the kāya
. Consider MN 28’s explanation of contact –
(taking just the kāya analysis)
Now if internally the body is intact but externally tangibles do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the body is intact and externally tangibles come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the body is intact and externally tangibles come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
Ajjhattiko ce āvuso kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā na āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, no ca tajjo samannāhāro hoti, neva tāva tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti. Ajjhattiko ce āvuso kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, no ca tajjo samannāhāro hoti, nevatāva tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti. Yato ca kho āvuso ajjhattiko ce kāyo aparibhinno hoti, bāhirā ca poṭṭhabbā āpāthaṃ āgacchanti, tajjo ca samannāhāro hoti, evaṃ tajjassa viññāṇabhāgassa pātubhāvo hoti.
This analysis survives also in the Chinese parallel 象蹟喻, MA 30 , save that instead of using the stylized tajja samannāhāra
, the Indic loan word was equivalent to the Pali manasikāra
, thereby agreeing with the Commentary’s gloss of tajja samannāhāra.
What this analysis suggests is that an external āyatana
could bump into its corresponding internal āyatana
, but consciousness of it does not arise in the absence of attention. The tajja
(correspondance) concept does make its appearance elsewhere, including MN 140 which you cited.
Speaking of MN 140, the “he feels it detached” phrase employs visaṃyutta
(not yoked) which BB renders as “detached”. It does not look anything like the 1st Jhana pericope’s vivicca
, nor can I find any references to suggest that these are synonyms. If anything, the passage in MN 140 preceding the “detachment” analysis suggests that it is the realization of the lack of a basis for delight (anabhinanditā
) in the 3 kinds of feelings that leads to the detachment. This “does not delight” (na abhinandati
) kind of analysis is always associated with full awakening, not the jhanas.
SN 48.37 Dutiyavibhaṅga Sutta informs us that the pleasure and pain faculties are born of body contact (kāyasamphassaja), whereas the happiness and unhappiness faculties are born of mind contact (manosamphassaja).
things seem fairly clear...
Slurp! Let me track down my old posts on this kāyasamphassaja
dichotomy. Essentially, it establishes a dichotomy of feelings as either kāyika
. There are ample suttas which suggest that kāyasamphassaja vedanā
includes the vedanā
simpliciter (affective tone) born of mano
contact, while manosamphassaja vedanā
refers to the resulting emotive tone of joy (somanassa
) or grief (domanassa
) or upekkhā