Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

[SamKR]

My understanding is that namarupa literally means name-form. I don't like "named form" because it may (?) imply that there can be not-named forms or forms without names. If there is no such implication then "named form" is fine too.

Name simply means label or conceptual designation, and form simply means shape or anything that appears to be (as visual shape, auditory shape or sound, sensation-shape, thoughts-forms, etc.) on the basis of such naming, designation or reification.

Without names or conceptual designations (nama) there cannot be formation (rupa) of any distinct and discrete thing having a boundary (name provides boundaries to "things", and thus things are fabricated). And, without basis for such formation it is impossible to name anything. So, for a "thing" to be, it has to be namarupa. They are inseparable: you cannot imagine a name without form to name, and vice versa. Everything in this world is namarupa, including the body and the world itself.

[sentinel]

Ok , but how do you relate it in the dependent origination and dependent cessation to consciousness and six senses base ?

'Inclination' of 'mind-body' arises due to ignorance & the sankharas. Consciousness will also simultaneously arise & be enslaved by ignorance & sankharas in this process. When the mind-body incline (such as are affected by sensual desire), the sense organs will incline to seek out sense objects externally.

For example, you try to meditate but ignorance attacks your mind-body with sankharas of sensual desire. So you stop meditating & the sense organs look for sense objects on the internet to gain sensual pleasure from.

But if the mind-body has mindfulness, instead of stimulating the external sense bases, mindfulness of the mind-body will calm the sankharas, attain samadhi, and, with vipassana, destroy ignorance; which is dependent cessation.

I would think mind body is not compatible with namarupa , because rupa is broader . From the dependent origination , ignorance to sankhara to consciousness to nama rupa to six senses base ,
if the six senses base here is referring to the next life , then the mindbody (namarupa) give rise to new six senses base ?

[sentinel]

My understanding is that namarupa literally means name-form. I don't like "named form" because it may (?) imply that there can be not-named forms or forms without names. If there is no such implication then "named form" is fine too.

Name simply means label or conceptual designation, and form simply means shape or anything that appears to be (as visual shape, auditory shape or sound, sensation-shape, thoughts-forms, etc.) on the basis of such naming, designation or reification.

Without names or conceptual designations (nama) there cannot be formation (rupa) of any distinct and discrete thing having a boundary (name provides boundaries to "things", and thus things are fabricated). And, without basis for such formation it is impossible to name anything. So, for a "thing" to be, it has to be namarupa. They are inseparable: you cannot imagine a name without form to name, and vice versa. Everything in this world is namarupa, including the body and the world itself.

That's where you went wrong . It seems Sujato also translated it as such which is IMO is not correct . Nama is not naming . Can you refer any sutta stated that ?

[SarathW]

if the six senses base here is referring to the next life , then the mindbody (namarupa) give rise to new six senses base ?

Sometimes I wonder Namarupa related to the first few weeks of the embryo where the only mind is there no other five Ayatanas formed yet.

[sentinel]

if the six senses base here is referring to the next life , then the mindbody (namarupa) give rise to new six senses base ?

Sometimes I wonder Namarupa related to the first few weeks of the embryo where the only mind is there no other five Ayatanas formed yet.

The embryo does not fit into the dependent origination .

[DooDoot]

Sometimes I wonder Namarupa related to the first few weeks of the embryo where the only mind is there no other five Ayatanas formed yet.

The sense organs are probably called 'indriya' or 'five faculties' (eg. MN 43; MN 152). Where as 'ayatana' refers to inner & outer sense spheres (eg. MN 148), of which there are six pairs. The sense organs developed by an embryo I assume are called 'indriya' rather than 'ayatana'. Also, it is doubtful a new embryo without sense organs would have feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention.

I would think mind body is not compatible with namarupa , because rupa is broader .

The suttas appear define 'rupa' as the physical body. Possibly you should read the suttas, such as SN 12.2 & MN 62.

From the dependent origination , ignorance to sankhara to consciousness to nama rupa to six senses base , if the six senses base here is referring to the next life , then the mindbody (namarupa) give rise to new six senses base ?

This sounds biology & physiology rather than the arising of dukkha. The suttas teach extensively about ignorance at sense contact (rather than ignorance in a past life & sense contact in the current life). The ideas you are posting sounds similar to Buddhaghosa's Visiddhimagga. When I meditate, I discern nama-rupa is the mind-body that is affected by ignorance when there is no mindfulness. This is good enough for me because i definitely find it helps to end suffering.

That's where you went wrong . It seems Sujato also translated it as such which is IMO is not correct . Nama is not naming . Can you refer any sutta stated that ?

DN 15 uses this Brahmanistic idea about naming forms but this seems to conflict with SN 12.2; MN 9; etc. This has been discussed already. It would be ironic if Sujato was translating all nama-rupa the same as DN 15 because I read Sujato critizing the DN in one of his books.

[sentinel]

Sometimes I wonder Namarupa related to the first few weeks of the embryo where the only mind is there no other five Ayatanas formed yet.

The sense organs are probably called 'indriya' or 'five faculties' (eg. MN 43; MN 152). Where as 'ayatana' refers to inner & outer sense spheres (eg. MN 148), of which there are six pairs. The sense organs developed by an embryo I assume are called 'indriya' rather than 'ayatana'. Also, it is doubtful a new embryo without sense organs would have feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention.

I would think mind body is not compatible with namarupa , because rupa is broader .

The suttas appear define 'rupa' as the physical body. Possibly you should read the suttas, such as SN 12.2 & MN 62.

From the dependent origination , ignorance to sankhara to consciousness to nama rupa to six senses base , if the six senses base here is referring to the next life , then the mindbody (namarupa) give rise to new six senses base ?

This sounds biology & physiology rather than the arising of dukkha. The suttas teach extensively about ignorance at sense contact (rather than ignorance in a past life & sense contact in the current life). The ideas you are posting sounds similar to Buddhaghosa's Visiddhimagga. When I meditate, I discern nama-rupa is the mind-body that is affected by ignorance when there is no mindfulness. This is good enough for me because i definitely find it helps to end suffering.

That's where you went wrong . It seems Sujato also translated it as such which is IMO is not correct . Nama is not naming . Can you refer any sutta stated that ?

DN 15 uses this Brahmanistic idea about naming forms but this seems to conflict with SN 12.2; MN 9; etc. This has been discussed already. It would be ironic if Sujato was translating all nama-rupa the same as DN 15 because I read Sujato critizing the DN in one of his books.

Namarupa give rise to six internal external sphere ?
Could you explain what is mind to you?

[User1249x]

Nama&Rupa = Aggregates

If nama-rupa = aggregates then the Buddha would have called the 4th link aggregates. But the Buddha obviously did not do this.

Agree , however , you can't give an answer , do you ?

I can give you an answer if you are not doot/twilight, are you? I just don't want to talk to that guy because i've had the pleasure and don't want any of it also i suspect that he is multi-accounting and so i asked you. Read this post of mine if still unclear and you can negatively reply categorically to the question i will explain it to my best ability;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31302#p459834

[sentinel]

If nama-rupa = aggregates then the Buddha would have called the 4th link aggregates. But the Buddha obviously did not do this.

Agree , however , you can't give an answer , do you ?

I can give you an answer if you are not doot/twilight, are you? I just don't want to talk to that guy because i've had the pleasure and don't want any of it also i suspect that he is multi-accounting and so i asked you. Read this post of mine if still unclear and you can negatively reply categorically to the question i will explain it to my best ability;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31302#p459834

Don't worry , I'm not doot or twilight .

[Saengnapha]

Agree , however , you can't give an answer , do you ?

I can give you an answer if you are not doot/twilight, are you? I just don't want to talk to that guy because i've had the pleasure and don't want any of it also i suspect that he is multi-accounting and so i asked you. Read this post of mine if still unclear and you can negatively reply categorically to the question i will explain it to my best ability;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31302#p459834

Don't worry , I'm not doot or twilight .

James, do you really expect to get a definitive answer to your questions from anyone? All you could do is agree or disagree. Can you see the meaninglessness of such activity? Chasing these kinds of questions can only bring problems because any answer you accept or reject requires defending it. It is all thinking about thinking, mental masturbation, if you will. Wanting 'to know' is the problem, not the answer. This becomes more and more obvious if you are honest with yourself and allow yourself to feel this deeply and not try to think your way into 'understanding'. It doesn't work.

[sentinel]

I can give you an answer if you are not doot/twilight, are you? I just don't want to talk to that guy because i've had the pleasure and don't want any of it also i suspect that he is multi-accounting and so i asked you. Read this post of mine if still unclear and you can negatively reply categorically to the question i will explain it to my best ability;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31302#p459834

Don't worry , I'm not doot or twilight .

James, do you really expect to get a definitive answer to your questions from anyone? All you could do is agree or disagree. Can you see the meaninglessness of such activity? Chasing these kinds of questions can only bring problems because any answer you accept or reject requires defending it. It is all thinking about thinking, mental masturbation, if you will. Wanting 'to know' is the problem, not the answer. This becomes more and more obvious if you are honest with yourself and allow yourself to feel this deeply and not try to think your way into 'understanding'. It doesn't work.

I appreciate your concern and
I understand what you are trying to conveys , however , if you have never listened to ug or anyone else before , you will never come to this conclusion which means you are also convincing yourself your understanding is not working for you . Can you see the meaninglessness of your activities in this forum also ?

[DooDoot]

Namarupa give rise to six internal external sphere ?
Could you explain what is mind to you?

When the mind is enlightened (unless teaching people or obtaining requisites) the mind abides in inwardly in meditation, like this: The eye, ear, nose, tongue & external body are shut-off or closed down; like closing the doors & windows in a house.

But when ignorance arises & controls the mind, the mind abides externally looking for sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches to indulge in via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & body. These sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches and thoughts about them called "external ayatana' in the suttas.

The six internal bases should be understood. There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base.

The six external bases should be understood.’ There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odour-base, the flavour-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood. ’

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn148

Therefore, in my opinion, when the mind-body is controlled by ignorance, the sense organs also can be controlled by ignorance, like in this photo.

[User1249x]

Assuming you already read the post i linked to i will ask if you can see that;
Nama&Rupa & Five Aggregates have their comparative merits as concepts when it comes to explaining reality. Does this make sense?
It is a practical thing, Five aggregates are a model describing the Human existence.
Nama&Rupa is a model describing material and immaterial existence (human included).

The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.

Saying "5 Aggregates" or just "Aggregates" the difference there alone is big in what you can communicate with it.

Saying that Nama&Rupa = 5 Aggregates=Rupa/Arupa States that is also wrong

Saying that Nama&Rupa = Aggregates=Rupa/Arupa States i think it is a "trick-statement" because using the restricted form of "5 Aggregates" being used as merely "Aggregates" to describe Arupa States and one could explain it. That is why i stated it.

Saying that 5 Aggregates describe Arupa States is wrong because Rupa is one of the 5 Aggregates so it does not apply to those particular states of existence.

[DooDoot]

Assuming you already read the post i linked

I tried to read it but i was unable to linguistically comprehend it. Possibly, you might consider starting with the basics of Buddhism.

Nama&Rupa & Five Aggregates have their comparative merits as concepts when it comes to explaining reality. Does this make sense?

Not to me because the suttas appear to say the aggregates are things 'clung to' & things 'to be comprehended' (rather than mere descriptive concepts).

It is a practical thing, Five aggregates are a model describing the Human existence.

In the suttas, the five aggregates are the things clung to or mistaken as 'self'.

Nama&Rupa is a model describing material and immaterial existence (human included).

The suttas say nama&rupa is feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention and the form comprised of earth, wind, fire & water; as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is nama-and-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa.

SN 12.2

The suttas do not say nama-rupa is form, feeling, perception, mental formations & consciousness.

The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.

The sutta don't appear to say this.

Saying that 5 Aggregates describe Arupa States is wrong because Rupa is one of the 5 Aggregates so it does not apply to those particular states of existence.

In the suttas, existence (bhava) is the 10th condition of DO rather than the 4th.

[User1249x]

The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.

The sutta don't appear to say this.

Your screen name is DooDoot,
is this also to be refuted by not being in the Sutta?

It was linguistically so incomprehensible, I was not even able to refute it.

the absence of proof is not the proof of abscence.