porpoise wrote:Not true, there are clearly 2 options. And in fact if you read the suttas describing dependent origination you will find that "form arising in dependence on consciousness" is described more frequently than "form and consciousness being mutually dependent".
The option that the suttas don't describe is "consciousness arising in dependence on form". So Buddhism disagrees with science.
It was mentioned the potential to develop a materialistic
interpretation. The suttas are not necessarily explaining the physical existence of the physical body (rupa) is dependent on consciousness. For example, when a human being is unconsciousness, science can maintain their physical life using life support methods. The physical body does not necessarily have to be consciousness to live. This is pointed in the suttas, as posted, which describe the cessation of perception & feeling, which explain that as long as heat & vitality continue to exist, the physical body will continue to exist as a life form.
"Form arising in dependence on consciousness" can simply mean the awareness of
form arising in dependence on consciousness. When a tree falls in a forest, does anybody hear?
porpoise wrote:See here, for example in DN15:
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
The Four Great Standards (Mahapadesa) established by the Buddha mean Buddhists have the right to reject DN 15 since the explanation in DN 15 is contrary to all of the other suttas about Dependent Origination. DN 15 is not "the suttas" but, instead, one single sutta. All of the suttas, apart from the single DN 15, explain consciousness as the six-fold sense consciousness & nama-rupa as mentality-materiality. Worse, science can easily disprove the materialistic notion of: "If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb", since consciousness is not required for the development of an embryo, which is why scientists can create & grow embryos in test tubes.
Also, DN 15 states:
“Name-&-form conditions contact should be understood in this way: If those qualities (àkàra), traits (liïga), signs (nimitta), and indicators (uddesa) through which there is a description of the mental body (nàma-kàya) were all absent, would designation-contact (adhivacana-samphassa) be discerned in the physical body (rupa-kàya)?”
“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the physical body (rupa-kàya) were all absent, would impingement-contact (pañigha-samphassa) be discerned in the mental body (nàma-kàya)?”
To this extent, ânanda, one can be born, age, and die, fall (from one existence) and rise (into another); to this extent there is a pathway for designation (adhivacana-patha), a pathway for language (nirutti-patha), a pathway for concept (pannatti-patha), a sphere for wisdom (pannà-avacara); to this extent the round turns as far as can be discerned in this state (itthattaü pannàpanàya), that is, (when there is) name-&-form together with consciousness.
This quote about nama-rupa is a strange beast & appears to not exist anywhere else in the suttas. Worse, it seems to imply an embryo & fetus are engaged in the mental acts of description, discernment, language, conceptualising, sense contact, etc. This is contrary to MN 64, where it is explained a new born child cannot conceptualise.
Since you are quoting & relying on DN 15, why don't you explain to the forum what this unusual version of nama-rupa means?