Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:22 am

Contact ( phassa ) is the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense-consciousness, with sense-consciousness arising in dependence on sense-base and object ( that makes sense practically speaking because you need the ability to see and something to be seen in order to have visual consciousness ).

Sanna really is recognition in the suttas. Here's another description of sanna ( perception ) from MN43:

"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"
"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

You could also describe sanna as naming, and in the suttas it is colours which are named or recognised ( categorised? ). So I don't agree with the OP premis that "named form" is an accurate description of nama-rupa. The nama aspect includes a range of mental functions and activities, and naming ( sanna ) is only one of them.

Note that sanna is a function of all six sense bases, so it's not just about how sense-data is processed by the five "physical" senses - see here in SN25 for example:

"At Savatthi. "Monks, perception of forms is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

What the suttas describe doesn't map directly onto a modern understanding of perception and neuroscience, so it's probably best not to muddle them up, or try to force one framework into the other ( square pegs and round holes! ).
When we discuss these things, the translations of words can vary quite a bit. I see that we think of the same processes but use a different word for it. Let's not make it a sticking point. Perhaps we should stick to English to describe the process of perception and name and form. If we start by using the eye as a sample sense base, light enters and color registers. There is no naming of the color yet. A construction of an image must take place first in order for there to be 'recognition'. To me, this is cognition, the result of the eye, the light that hits it, the feeling of the color, and the rest of the sense bases joining to construct an object. At first it is just a mental picture, but the brain constructs the whole scene including subject/object, and time and space. I don't think it is necessary to analyze every aspect of this process and then translate it into Pali, Sanskrit, or whatever we've read in a book. The fact that perception is created mentally along with the mental creation of time and space and someone who is experiencing all of this is the important point, not the fact that we can create a linear map that we can study. It becomes an insight, vipassana. It seems when equanimity is stable, one can begin to see the process of perception and how it creates the world, its objects, and the self. Any further thoughts?

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:19 pm

I am not following the discussion carefully since I already have a view of these things which I find adequate for my practice but I follow casually because I am always ready to learn more.

The topic of the difficulty to making sense of the terms and assembling them into a model interests me and I have thought about it alot. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that while us modern folk mostly have a model where the brain does all the data processing and since us modern fold also mostly associate the brain with the mind those old time people in the buddha's time did not necessarily have that delineation. For instance they might very well have thought that alot of the data processing for the eye (for example) actually went on in the eye and not the brain....this could explain why there is eye consciousness. Us modern folk mostly think that consciousness happens in the brain mostly or completely and most modern folk don't think that there is consciousness happening in the eye......so some people talk about the external eye and the internal eye with the internal eye being a mental representation of the actual physical eye. I have not problems with any of this but the point I want to make is that understanding what is going on is quite different I think if one is of the view that there is actually a kind of consciousness with assosciated perception, feeling etc. all on its own without recourse to the mind.
Maybe everyone already has considered this.....I havent' been following closely so if I'm just wasting time here I appologize.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:31 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:19 pm
I am not following the discussion carefully since I already have a view of these things which I find adequate for my practice but I follow casually because I am always ready to learn more.

The topic of the difficulty to making sense of the terms and assembling them into a model interests me and I have thought about it alot. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that while us modern folk mostly have a model where the brain does all the data processing and since us modern fold also mostly associate the brain with the mind those old time people in the buddha's time did not necessarily have that delineation. For instance they might very well have thought that alot of the data processing for the eye (for example) actually went on in the eye and not the brain....this could explain why there is eye consciousness. Us modern folk mostly think that consciousness happens in the brain mostly or completely and most modern folk don't think that there is consciousness happening in the eye......so some people talk about the external eye and the internal eye with the internal eye being a mental representation of the actual physical eye. I have not problems with any of this but the point I want to make is that understanding what is going on is quite different I think if one is of the view that there is actually a kind of consciousness with assosciated perception, feeling etc. all on its own without recourse to the mind.
Maybe everyone already has considered this.....I havent' been following closely so if I'm just wasting time here I appologize.
chownah
This is where introspective attention applies. You discover for yourself how the body functions apart from the interpretations that we get from external sources. This is what matters most, don't you think?

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:56 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:31 pm
This is where introspective attention applies. You discover for yourself how the body functions apart from the interpretations that we get from external sources. This is what matters most, don't you think?
Yes. and to extend what you say....my view is that through introspective attention one can see that what we see as how the body functions is fabricated and not self.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:36 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:56 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:31 pm
This is where introspective attention applies. You discover for yourself how the body functions apart from the interpretations that we get from external sources. This is what matters most, don't you think?
Yes. and to extend what you say....my view is that through introspective attention one can see that what we see as how the body functions is fabricated and not self.
chownah
Yes, but that is not the end of it. That is only a form of vipassana, insight, the mind informing the mind, so to speak. There seems to be some formless samadhis that take this to a different level with a stopping of all experience and a kind of regeneration that allows the activity of perception to be known and never personalized again. I believe that this is the real awakening, when the activities of the senses do not result in 'I' making.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15824
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:19 am

Hi Saengnapha,
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
When we discuss these things, the translations of words can vary quite a bit. I see that we think of the same processes but use a different word for it. Let's not make it a sticking point. Perhaps we should stick to English to describe the process of perception and name and form. ...
I'm a little confused about what you are trying to get at here. Namarupa is a tricky concept, and I thought it would be helpful to discuss it, particularly from the point of view of Ven Nanananda's Sermons, Ven Analayo's lectures on them, and some of the other sources that I have pointed out. There are, as Dinsdale points out, some detailed descriptions in various suttas of what the terms mean, and how they relate to each other. Of course, it's possible to have other interpretations of the cognitive processes, but what I was interested in doing here was to explore how they are actually described in the suttas.

:heart:
Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:41 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:19 am
Hi Saengnapha,
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
When we discuss these things, the translations of words can vary quite a bit. I see that we think of the same processes but use a different word for it. Let's not make it a sticking point. Perhaps we should stick to English to describe the process of perception and name and form. ...
I'm a little confused about what you are trying to get at here. Namarupa is a tricky concept, and I thought it would be helpful to discuss it, particularly from the point of view of Ven Nanananda's Sermons, Ven Analayo's lectures on them, and some of the other sources that I have pointed out. There are, as Dinsdale points out, some detailed descriptions in various suttas of what the terms mean, and how they relate to each other. Of course, it's possible to have other interpretations of the cognitive processes, but what I was interested in doing here was to explore how they are actually described in the suttas.

:heart:
Mike
Fair enough, Mike. I won't stand in your way. :)

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:20 am

Having done a bit more research, I'm pretty sure that the nama aspect of nama-rupa is equivalent to the three aggregates of sanna, vedana and sankharas. So nama-rupa is equivalent to the aggregates minus consciousness, ie sanna, vedana, sankharas and rupa.

Possibly you could describe nama-rupa as responding to form? Though the absence of consciousness in nama-rupa makes such descriptions somewhat inadequate IMO.

What I find intriguing is how the early section of DO separates out consciousness from the other factors - it seems significant. In some versions of DO nama-rupa and vinnana are mutually dependent, while in others nama-rupa arises in dependence on vinnana. :thinking:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:19 pm
The topic of the difficulty to making sense of the terms and assembling them into a model interests me and I have thought about it alot. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that while us modern folk mostly have a model where the brain does all the data processing and since us modern fold also mostly associate the brain with the mind those old time people in the buddha's time did not necessarily have that delineation. For instance they might very well have thought that alot of the data processing for the eye (for example) actually went on in the eye and not the brain....this could explain why there is eye consciousness. Us modern folk mostly think that consciousness happens in the brain mostly or completely and most modern folk don't think that there is consciousness happening in the eye......so some people talk about the external eye and the internal eye with the internal eye being a mental representation of the actual physical eye. I have not problems with any of this but the point I want to make is that understanding what is going on is quite different I think if one is of the view that there is actually a kind of consciousness with assosciated perception, feeling etc. all on its own without recourse to the mind.
Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm
Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:56 pm

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm
Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah
:shrug: Have you any constructive comment to make on what I have said? I am getting very tired of your sarcasm and patronising tone.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:13 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:56 pm
chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm
Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah
:shrug: Have you any constructive comment to make on what I have said? I am getting very tired of your sarcasm and patronising tone.
No......except I would like you to know that I am definitely not being sarcastic or patronising. I think it is good that you interpret and understand things in a way that you find satisfactory. I am not trying or wanting to convince you of anything.....maybe your interpretation of this is sarcasm and patronising....I don't know.....I'm not going to worry about it.
If you are tired of my posting then just tune it out.
edit: I don't recall me ever posting anything that changed anything in your views anyway (so tuning it out should be no great loss for you)....it seems like it just leads to back and forth with no progress. That's fine. I'm not trying to convince you of anything anyway......I have been taking steps to reduce the back and forth with no progress in my posting....too much work and not enough reward.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:29 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:20 am
Having done a bit more research, I'm pretty sure that the nama aspect of nama-rupa is equivalent to the three aggregates of sanna, vedana and sankharas. So nama-rupa is equivalent to the aggregates minus consciousness, ie sanna, vedana, sankharas and rupa.

Possibly you could describe nama-rupa as responding to form? Though the absence of consciousness in nama-rupa makes such descriptions somewhat inadequate IMO.

What I find intriguing is how the early section of DO separates out consciousness from the other factors - it seems significant. In some versions of DO nama-rupa and vinnana are mutually dependent, while in others nama-rupa arises in dependence on vinnana. :thinking:
Doesn't the latter interpretation, nama-rupa arising in dependence on vinnana, make sense to you?
I'm not sure what you mean by separating out consciousness from other factors.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:05 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm
Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah
Since this reply of mine seems to have made a strong reaction which was unintended, I'll explain further:
My view is that there is no single interpretation of namarupa and all that associated stuff which is the correct one. If the buddha intended there to be one correct interpretation then I am sure that the buddha would have done a better job of delineating it. Also, the buddha teaches that all views are to be abandoned which for me adds to the feeling that there is no single correct interpretation but I will not try to explain why it adds to the feeling.
When you said that you were willing to accept that it could be viewed this way or that way or some other way I interpreted this to mean that to a certain (perhaps small) degree that you held a somewhat (slightly) similar view.....that progress can be made through different interpretations and that different interpretations do not mean that any one interpretation is better than any other at helping us to progress on our paths.
Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you find that the detail you were discussing is unsatisfactory because that detail doesn't matter. Perhaps you were saying that because you can not see a difference then that detail is immaterial. I don't know....I think that what I said was not accurate because your response was very atypical.

chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19527
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:11 am

Greetings,

There's some interesting analysis on pages 19 & 20 of Ven. Nanananda's Paticcasamuppada Sermon 1.

Unfortunately I can't copy and paste the relevant text because the PDF file is locked down.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:39 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
Sanna really is recognition in the suttas. Here's another description of sanna ( perception ) from MN43:
"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"
"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
If we start by using the eye as a sample sense base, light enters and color registers. There is no naming of the color yet. A construction of an image must take place first in order for there to be 'recognition'. To me, this is cognition, the result of the eye, the light that hits it, the feeling of the color, and the rest of the sense bases joining to construct an object. At first it is just a mental picture, but the brain constructs the whole scene including subject/object, and time and space... The fact that perception is created mentally
Are you sure the sutta quote is referring to naming 'green' & 'blue' or, otherwise, could be referring to distinguishing the contrast between colors? Also, you appear to be saying 'naming' of colours occurs before visual contact with the eye sense organ.
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
along with the mental creation of time and space and someone who is experiencing all of this is the important point, not the fact that we can create a linear map that we can study. It becomes an insight, vipassana. It seems when equanimity is stable, one can begin to see the process of perception and how it creates the world, its objects, and the self. Any further thoughts?
Chownah already posted his interpretation from MN 43 how consciousness, feeling & perception are inseparable or cojoined. As for 'the self', according to SN 22.81, it appears to be a mental formation (sankhara) rather than perception (sanna). You appear to be saying idea of 'self' occurs at nama-rupa (rather than at attachment/upadana).
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15824
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:23 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:11 am
Greetings,

There's some interesting analysis on pages 19 & 20 of Ven. Nanananda's Paticcasamuppada Sermon 1.

Unfortunately I can't copy and paste the relevant text because the PDF file is locked down.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hi Retro, You mean this passage?
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.0.pdf
... Once the Buddha asked Ānanda:

“Therein, Ānanda, whoever says this: “Feeling is not my
self. My self is not of a nature of experiencing,” he should be
asked thus: “Friend, where there is nothing felt in whatever way,
would there be the notion ‘Am’ (or ‘I am’)?”

“There would not, Lord”

(“Tatr Ānanda yo so evamāha” na heva kho me vedanā
attā, appaṭisaṁvedano me attāti “so evamassa vacanīyo yattha
panāvuso sabbaso vedayitaṁ natthi api nu kho tattha ‘asmīti’
siyāti?”

“No hetaṁ bhante.”)

Now, that is the reason why feeling is counted first
instead of contact. The basic function of consciousness is the
discrimination between the three grades of feeling – the pleasant,
the painful and the neither painful nor pleasant. As you are seated
here , why do you now and then change your posture? Isn’t it
because of feeling? So in other situations too. ‘Feeling’ gives rise
to ‘perception’. Then comes ‘intention’. “Never mind listening to
the sermon. Let me turn a little.” That is the intention. Where
does the next thought go? To the point of ‘contact’. With that
‘attention’ gets engaged.

I hope you all can now gather what the constituents of
‘name’ (nāma) are. Then what is called ‘form’ (rūpa)? There
again many are confused. Here is the definition of ‘rūpa’in
‘nāmarūpa’.

‘Cattāroca mahābhūtā catuññañca mahābhitānaṁ upādāya rūpaṁ’

‘The four great primaries and form derived from the four
great primaries.’

The word ‘upādāya’ in this definition is often
mistranslated and misinterpreted. The four great primaries are
like four ‘non-descript ghosts’ (eg. ‘bhūta’– ghostly being). They
can be recognized only with the help of the factors listed under
‘nāma’ (name). So ‘rūpa’ is in effect ‘rūpa saññā’ (perception of
form) derived from the four great primaries. Take it that way, for
that is how the ‘non-descripts’ become ‘describable’. What we
have here is not that ‘matter’ (rūpa) the scientists have in mind.
To explain this, we coined various definitions:

‘Name in ‘name and form’ is formal name,
Form in ‘name and form’ is nominal form’

Now try to get this clear. What is meant by saying ‘Name’
in name and form is formal name is that it is not the type of
conventional name known to the world like ‘clock’ and chair’. It
is only the most preliminary or incipient stage in naming, as in
the case of a blind man acquainting himself with some object
through feeling, perception and the rest of the name group. Then
about form in name and form, we said, it is nominal form (or
form only in name) in the sense that it is not something existing
by itself as known in the world. It can only be known through the
constituents of name. As you all know, the earth-element is
perceived as hard and soft and the fire-element in terms of
hotness and coolness. The four great primaries are recognized by
means of the factors on the name side. In fact, it is only a
perception of form (rūpasaññā). That is why we called it
‘nominal form’ or ‘form only in name’. If one correctly
understands ‘name and form’ he would realize that it is merely a
reflection on consciousness. Think for instance, of what comes
before the eyes – what falls on the retina. Isn’t that the beginning
of the camera? It is only a reflection which the brain interprets as
beautiful. That is why the Buddha calls perception a mirage.

What appears out there as beautiful is actually not there. That is
to say, with eye as a condition it appears beautiful. To one who
wears green spectacles, for instance, it would appear green.
Consciousness and name and form are inter-related. We use a
special term in this connection – one that is found in the
discourses, namely ‘dvayatā’ (duality). Existence involves a
duality. That is what we call ‘vaṭṭa’ or vortex. We shall explain it
in due course. There is a vortex between supply and demand on
which price depends. The interdependence between
consciousness and name and form involves the entire world in a
vortical interplay.
...
[I haven't tried looking at the file with Adobe's software, but I have no problem copying it with the Linux tool. I presume that, like with some of the Buddhanet books, someone just ticked the wrong box somewhere, since locking a freely available file makes no sense...]

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19527
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:02 am

Greetings Mike,

That's it. Thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:30 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:23 am
... Once the Buddha asked Ānanda:

“Therein, Ānanda, whoever says this: “Feeling is not my
self. My self is not of a nature of experiencing,” he should be
asked thus: “Friend, where there is nothing felt in whatever way,
would there be the notion ‘Am’ (or ‘I am’)?”

“There would not, Lord”

(“Tatr Ānanda yo so evamāha” na heva kho me vedanā
attā, appaṭisaṁvedano me attāti “so evamassa vacanīyo yattha
panāvuso sabbaso vedayitaṁ natthi api nu kho tattha ‘asmīti’
siyāti?”

“No hetaṁ bhante.”)

Now, that is the reason why feeling is counted first
instead of contact. The basic function of consciousness is the
discrimination between the three grades of feeling – the pleasant,
the painful and the neither painful nor pleasant.
From MN 148:
Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant.
:alien:
mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:23 am
As you are seated here , why do you now and then change your posture? Isn’t it
because of feeling? So in other situations too. ‘Feeling’ gives rise to ‘perception’. Then comes ‘intention’. “Never mind listening to the sermon. Let me turn a little.” That is the intention. Where does the next thought go? To the point of ‘contact’. With that ‘attention’ gets engaged.
This is similar to my previous post. However, I think internal contact, such as physical discomfort, must be distinguished from external contact, such as eye-contact. The 'contact' within 4th link nama-rupa, relates to contact with the inner 2nd link sankharas (plus rupa), which appear to be defined as both physical & mental. The 4th link nama-rupa contact is different to the 6th link sense bases contact.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:28 am
... the 'contact' within the 'nama-rupa' link is an 'internal' contact, namely, contact with ignorance & sankhara as the sense objects. In other words, it is has not yet reached the 6th link, which has an 'external' orientation. For example, again from MN 18:
Dependent on [internal] body (4th link) & sankhara sensations (2nd link), body-consciousness (3rd link) arises. The meeting of the three is contact (4th link).

Dependent on intellect (4th link) & sankhara (2nd link), intellect-consciousness (3rd link) arises. The meeting of the three is contact (4th link).
Internally, there are different kinds of contact, such as:

* Contact with breathing (kaya-sankhara) as object.

* Contact with breathing & feeling together as object, such as feeling a pleasant breath.

* Contact with breathing, feeling & perception together as object, such as feeling & perceiving a pleasant & long breath.

* Contact with breathing, feeling, perception & intention together as object, such as feeling & perceiving a pleasant & long breath and exercising the intention to remain with that breath or the intention to practise letting go/relaxation towards that breath.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:39 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
Sanna really is recognition in the suttas. Here's another description of sanna ( perception ) from MN43:
"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"
"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
If we start by using the eye as a sample sense base, light enters and color registers. There is no naming of the color yet. A construction of an image must take place first in order for there to be 'recognition'. To me, this is cognition, the result of the eye, the light that hits it, the feeling of the color, and the rest of the sense bases joining to construct an object. At first it is just a mental picture, but the brain constructs the whole scene including subject/object, and time and space... The fact that perception is created mentally
Are you sure the sutta quote is referring to naming 'green' & 'blue' or, otherwise, could be referring to distinguishing the contrast between colors? Also, you appear to be saying 'naming' of colours occurs before visual contact with the eye sense organ.
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm
along with the mental creation of time and space and someone who is experiencing all of this is the important point, not the fact that we can create a linear map that we can study. It becomes an insight, vipassana. It seems when equanimity is stable, one can begin to see the process of perception and how it creates the world, its objects, and the self. Any further thoughts?
Chownah already posted his interpretation from MN 43 how consciousness, feeling & perception are inseparable or cojoined. As for 'the self', according to SN 22.81, it appears to be a mental formation (sankhara) rather than perception (sanna). You appear to be saying idea of 'self' occurs at nama-rupa (rather than at attachment/upadana).
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
This thread is getting a little muddy, I think. I didn't post that sutta quote. How could naming occur before visual contact? It seems the image must be constructed before the naming of it.
I agree with Chownah that the self appears to be a mental formation, sankhara. It seems to happen during the activity of perception where the categorization and identification of an 'object' takes place and the subjective part personalizes experience.

What are your thoughts?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Johnnymac and 96 guests