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?
Mike
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?
You have to read the whole thread for his definition.
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.
Hi ,mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:06 pmYou have to read the whole thread for his definition.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.
Mike
See, for example:
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.
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.
Mike
Somewhat strange translation, because nama is definitely not a rupa. Also, nama can be (and is) separated from rupa in Arupaloka.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.
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".What I find intriguing is how the early section of DO separates out consciousness from the other factors - it seems significant.
I noticed, sir! That's generally how I understand it, but I avoid making equivalences with the aggregates because I'm simply unsure.
Yeah, its DN15 lol. Sorry!aflatun' wrote:"Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?"
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.
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.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 ?
Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
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!
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.Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
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.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
DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pmVen 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.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 ?
Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .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!
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.Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
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.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
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.
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.James Tan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 amDooDoot wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pmVen 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.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 ?
Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .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!
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.Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
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.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
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.
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 .
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 amAll 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.James Tan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 amDooDoot 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.
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 .