Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:44 am Sure, but is anyone here arguing differently? I still don't see a problem with discussing mentality and materiality ( whatever ) as different aspects of the whole, and for that reason I still don't see a problem with the hyphen in nama-rupa.
I think that the problem is the idea that they can be separated. I've seen people post here saying things like:
How come so-and-so meditation style has so much about the body? Isn't the Dhamma about understanding the mind?
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 »

James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 am Hi , but sujato didn't explain what namarupa actually is ?
You have to read the whole thread for his definition.
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 am He seems right that it is about relation rather than something separate . However , Namarupa is not to be treated as mentality materiality aka as a single unit .
I disagree. Mind-body is an artifical division. See my first post. Are emotions mind, or body, or in both? To me, it's quite obvious they are both, but perhaps you have a convincing counter-argument.

:heart:
Mike
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:06 pm
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 am Hi , but sujato didn't explain what namarupa actually is ?
You have to read the whole thread for his definition.
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 am He seems right that it is about relation rather than something separate . However , Namarupa is not to be treated as mentality materiality aka as a single unit .
I disagree. Mind-body is an artifical division. See my first post. Are emotions mind, or body, or in both? To me, it's quite obvious they are both, but perhaps you have a convincing counter-argument.

:heart:
Mike
Hi ,
I read already , I could not see where him defining nama rupa . Maybe you can summarize it here .

You are looking at a tree , both related , but both being different also .
What I meant is nama rupa can't be treated as a piece of "thing" , I meant nama rupa is a substitute for a processes .
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 »

James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:16 pm I read already , I could not see where him defining nama rupa . Maybe you can summarize it here .
See, for example:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... upa/4600/2
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:16 pm You are looking at a tree , both related , but both being different also .
What I meant is nama rupa can't be treated as a piece of "thing" , I meant nama rupa is a substitute for a processes .
Yes, lookkng is a good example, as in that case we can't think of "rupa" as "the physical object", or "body", which is sometimes how it is interpreted. Rupa in that case seems to me to be the image, the shape, etc. And the image is only understood by the nama processes, one or the other alone is not enough.
:heart:
Mike
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

Sujato : But the basic problem is that the Abhidhamma treats the nāma as “mind”, which it never means in the suttas, and then rūpa becomes “body”, which it sometimes means in the suttas, but not here .

Apparently sujato didn't explain what is nama rupa . Anyway , I doubt that he could define the real meaning of it .

Therefore , you are back to square one .
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 »

Well, I thought he did a pretty good job in the post I linked to:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... u=mikenz66

And if you listen to Ven Analyo's discussion and read Ven Nananda's lecture, it makes a lot more sense. I gave all of the links near the start of the thread.

:heart:
Mike
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:54 pm Well, I thought he did a pretty good job in the post I linked to:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... u=mikenz66

And if you listen to Ven Analyo's discussion and read Ven Nananda's lecture, it makes a lot more sense. I gave all of the links near the start of the thread.

:heart:
Mike

Sujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.

Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution
. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .
What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?
:shrug:

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 »

Sorry, I have put a lot of information into this discussion, and I am not going to repeat myself, or try to summarise. If you have a specifc question about something that I have posted, by all means ask it.

:heart:
Mike
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

Hi ,

Never mind about namarupa , anyway thanks for the links you provided .
:anjali:
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Zom »

He comments that his preferred translation of nāmarūpa is "named form", and I see that a few others have used this. The usefulness of this translation is that it emphasises that one cannot separate the nāma and rūpa in nāmarūpa, which the translation "name and form" suggests.
Somewhat strange translation, because nama is definitely not a rupa. Also, nama can be (and is) separated from rupa in Arupaloka.
What I find intriguing is how the early section of DO separates out consciousness from the other factors - it seems significant.
I think this was done to counter vedic thought of "eternal (never-changing, self-sustaining) vinnyana". But, generally, nama+vinnyana is a thing which can be called "a mind".
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by aflatun »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:15 am
aflatun wrote: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:29 pm The interdependence of consciousness and nama-rupa kind of covers the whole thing in a way.
I suggested earlier in the thread that nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, ie the objects of consciousness, ie the aggregates of rupa, sanna, vedana and sankharas.
I noticed, sir! That's generally how I understand it, but I avoid making equivalences with the aggregates because I'm simply unsure.

If we bracket out Nibbana for now, on this reading Vinnana--Nama-Rupa is basically "all possible phenomena." What I find perplexing is connecting the 3rd and 4th links with the sense bases on this reading, as it seems to make the sense bases redundant. There was a thread a long time ago discussing this, I think some people argued the sense bases are assumed within nama-rupa sometimes. Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?

Also, I do take note of DooDoot's great points above and sometimes wonder.




EDIT:
aflatun' wrote:"Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?"
Yeah, its DN15 lol. Sorry! :rolleye:



DN 15 wrote:“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot »

James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pmSujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.

Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution
. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .
What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?
:shrug:

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.
Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:
Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18
As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

:goodpost:
DooDoot wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pmSujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.

Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution
. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .
What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?
:shrug:

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.
Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:
Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18
As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha »

James Tan wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am :goodpost:
DooDoot wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm
James Tan wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pmSujato : The Buddha went a step further, showing that consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that.

Thus the notion of nāmarūpa is evolving and shifting through this philosophical evolution
. It is losing its connection with magic and pre-rational thought, and becoming a rational, psychological idea. This shift is present within the EBTs, which enable us to trace the connections backwards through the Upanishads to magic, and forwards to the hyper-rational explanations of the Abhidhamma, where the connection with magical thinking is lost entirely.

P/s : Nothing , really , he didn't define it .

If you think he already defined it , then do elaborate it so that we all can have a true understanding .

Otherwise , I don't think you get it either .
What do you mean by namarupa exactly ?
:shrug:

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.
Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.

It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.

MN 18
As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by sentinel »

Saengnapha wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am
James Tan wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am :goodpost:
DooDoot wrote: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm
Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.


I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.

A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:

As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.

In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?
Post Reply