The Meaning of "Body-Witness" (Kayasakkhi): A Non-Theravada Reading

In this essay I offer my understanding of what "body-witness" (kayasakkhi) means in the suttas. The classical Theravada interpretation is that a body-witness is any of the not-yet-fully-awakened ones who has destroyed at least some of the taints (that is, a stream-enterer, once-returner, or non-returner), and who is able to attain some of the "liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms" (MN 70). As in many other cases, I think Theravada is not right here.

What the suttas say about the body-witness (kayasakkhi)

Let me first clarify what the Buddha said, according to the suttas, about who is a body-witness:

"What kind of person is a body-witness? Here some person contacts with the body and abides in those liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms, and some of his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom. This kind of person is called a body-witness." (MN 70)

The "liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms" refer to the eight "vimokkhas" (liberations, emancipations) listed in AN 8.66. This is a different list than the usual list of eight samadhi attainments (the four jhanas and the four formless attainments). The first three vimokkhas are quite rare to find in the suttas, and, to be perfectly honest, I am not completely sure myself what they refer to — but luckily, it is not relevant for this analysis. The last five of the eight vimokkhas are clear: they are the four formless attainments and the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha samapatti).

My reading: the body-witness attains nirodha samapatti

My understanding is that a body-witness is someone who attains the vimokkhas up to and including the cessation of perception and feeling — not only some of the formless states.

One might object that this does not fit the wording of MN 70, which describes the body-witness as contacting the liberations that are "peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms" (formless) — and the cessation of perception and feeling is usually counted as a state beyond the four formless attainments, not as one of them, so attaining the formless states should already fulfill the description of a body-witness. But the word translated here as "immaterial" is arupa, which simply means a-rupa: non-form, the absence of form (rupa). In this sense the cessation of perception and feeling is arupa as well. So while the cessation is indeed beyond the four formless attainments, it is still, technically, arupa — a formless liberation in its own right. The sutta's reference to "liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms" therefore does not, by itself, settle whether some of the four formless attainments alone are enough, or whether the phrase reaches up to the cessation of perception and feeling.

The textual ambiguity

The textual evidence is ambiguous. The suttas do not seem to be clear on the very point at issue — whether the body-witness necessarily attains the peaceful, formless liberations up to and including the cessation, or only some of them. (Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this ambiguity in footnotes 781 and 782 to AN 4.87.)

My reasoning rests mainly on two considerations. First, the Theravada interpretation of the body-witness is closely connected to the tradition's own assumption that only non-returners and arahants can attain nirodha samapatti — an assumption I argue is false in one of my previous essays. Second, once this artificial restriction on who can attain nirodha samapatti is removed, interpreting the body-witness as someone who attains the cessation of perception and feeling — and not only some of the formless attainments — makes much more sense.

Why the stricter reading depends on dropping the false restriction

Let me take the first point first. Given the Theravada belief about who can and cannot attain nirodha samapatti, the stricter definition of the body-witness does not work. The only possible body-witness would be a non-returner attaining the cessation of perception and feeling. But that is inconsistent with the basic description of a body-witness above (MN 70), which says the body-witness is someone who has destroyed some of the taints — and this is already true for stream-enterers. The non-returner-only scenario would also violate AN 3.21, which explicitly allows a body-witness to be a once-returner. And the belief that nirodha samapatti translates into arahantship right away (though I don't say the commentaries hold this) would not leave any room for a body-witness at all.

If you drop the Theravada restriction on who can attain nirodha samapatti, then the stricter interpretation suddenly becomes feasible: a body-witness is a stream-enterer, once-returner, or non-returner who attains the formless attainments and the cessation of perception and feeling.

Why the stricter reading makes more sense

The second step of my reasoning is that, once we drop the restriction that only non-returners and arahants can attain nirodha samapatti, the stricter interpretation of the body-witness makes much more sense.

I find it strange that there would be a separate, special category of the noble disciples (those who have entered the stream of the Dhamma and are bound to attain Nibbana sooner or later) based solely on their attainment of the non-cessation formless states. The formless attainments are profound and definitely helpful on the path to Nibbana, but I don't see their relevance in the suttas as being strong enough to deserve a special category like that.

A separate, special category for non-arahants who can attain the cessation of perception and feeling, on the other hand, makes sense: these meditators manage to still all three types of formations — bodily, verbal, and mental — and attain the state of cessation, which is the closest state to final Nibbana available during life (see the previous essay). Drawing the line for the body-witness at the cessation, rather than between the four jhanas and the formless attainments, seems more reasonable to me. The term "body-witness" then points to someone who "touches" or witnesses with the body — meaning directly, firsthand — the formless states, including the cessation of perception and feeling. Such a meditator "contacts (witnesses) cessation with the body."

In conclusion

All in all, I am not claiming that my reasoning rests on hard facts or scriptural proof — it does not. It rests on rejecting the Theravada belief about who can and cannot attain nirodha samapatti, and, from there, on a judgment about which reading of the body-witness — the stricter or the looser — makes better sense of the suttas. That judgment is, of course, partly subjective. But so is the looser reading: the Theravada interpretation is itself a judgment, not a proof. Once this is granted, the two readings compete on which one fits the suttas better — and on that basis, I believe the stricter reading stands on more solid ground.

It is worth adding that this is, in the end, a question of labels — of which term the suttas attach to which attainer — and nothing here changes the actual practice leading to Nibbana. That is how the essay is meant to be taken: as an attempt to read the suttas accurately.

Sources:

Anguttara Nikaya (AN): The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2012

Majjhima Nikaya (MN): The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications, 2009

If you would like to be informed about new essays and other relevant updates, you can sign up here.