Thanks for the helpful input, Bhante.
One developed in mind, in such sense, might have many mental ways to escape pain, like those train to bear all "just natural", but having not abond body and form, still consuming on it, the bearing has it's limit. Say: one day a larger wave will head over them. Many in the west, because not really knowing bodily pain, will be hardly touched when their merits run out. Let's take the fat yogi as an imagination here.
Many mental ways to escape pain: This might be jhana, or just habitual wholesome thoughts of enduring hardship and so on, seeing benefit in such strength, with a certain healthy pride seeing that one is capable of enduring unpleasentness.
The mind can be "larger" than the (mostly bodily) unpleasentness, having a higher escape.
This makes sense to me.
Does developed in body may endure bodily hardship for a long, then returning, because pain penetrates mentally (not knowing the escape) they amass again what abound before. Nyom might know it.
I know something about it, yes.
But this is what the Buddha calls "developed in body":
When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the body.
It is about resistance or "immunity" against pleasent touches. These feelings do not invade the mind for one who is developed in body. He does not get easily impassioned, addicted, infatuated with such pleasent feelings.
But I don't understand: Why is this called "developmed in
body", and the other called "developed in mind"?
I would think that being able to resist pleasure is also a development of the mind.
But the Buddha calls the resistance to pain "developed in mind", and the resistance to pleasure "developed in body".
When I left Ashram Thmo Duk after half a year of hard work and certain austerity I think it was not so much because I was overwhelmed by pain that I could not endure, but by the pleasure I was looking forward to. It was more the outlook of pleasure which invaded my mind, less the pain, I think.
So I think my greater lack was in the development of the body, if I understand the Buddha's definition correctly.
But I still don't understand:
One who is developed in mind can resist and endure painful (mostly bodily) feelings, because he has mental ways of escape from it.
One who is developed in body can resist and endure pleasent (mostly mental?) feelings, because he has bodily ways of escape from it?
The first makes sense to me.
The second I just tried to relate it in an analogue way to the first, but I can't really make so much sense of it.
It's possible that one, by developing the body, restrain bodily, having heard the Dhamma, may also adopt the developing of mind. Going together, knowing mind&matter are co-rleated, they may gain development by body and mind.
Should development in body, by developing restraint towards pleasure, always come first, as a necessary basis for development in mind (= resistance to pain and unpleasentness)?
The Brahman in this Sutta suggest that the Sublime Buddha might have an ease to talk because not knowing suffering, suggesting being only developed in mind (of what he actually doesn't know what it means).
Yes, and he also suggest the Sublime Buddha might have an ease to talk because not knowing pleasure, suggesting also lacking development in mind.
And the Buddha explains that he knows both very well, yet nothing from the highest pleasure
[1] to the most painful hardship
[2] could invade his mind, because of his development in both body and mind.
Still this question for me remains: I have not yet really understood why resistance to pleasure, without getting infatuated, is called development in body, while resistance to pain, without getting distraught and despaired, is called development in mind.
For me they both seem like different developments in mind, often seeming in mutual support of each other.
So any further explanations, if being able to understand my confusion, would be welcome, maybe helping me to understand.
I have also e-mailed
Admin (Dmytro) about it. Maybe he has a more "mathematical" answer to it.
Maybe
{removed name} or
{removed name}1 might also have some explanatory thoughts about it. (Not sure if reaching here by mention.)
Or
Birk (also not sure to reach, but will try on DhammaWheel).