Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:48 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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?
Well, of course, this is what we are trying to make sense of, with the help of the suttas, and of people who have spent some time analysing dependent origination:
“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent origination.
So what does it mean that
with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact;
?
Is this a temporal sequence, or something else?

Do you have any thoughts on Ven Analayo's explanations that I referenced here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30940 ?

:heart:
Mike

Dinsdale
Posts: 5980
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:41 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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.
Self-view is certainly a fabrication, but in the suttas self-view arises from appropriation of the aggregates as me and mine, not as a direct result of perception ( sanna ). As previously discussed, perception is necessary for survival, so it's a neutral function in Buddhist terms.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:48 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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?
Well, of course, this is what we are trying to make sense of, with the help of the suttas, and of people who have spent some time analysing dependent origination:
“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent origination.
So what does it mean that
with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact;
?
Is this a temporal sequence, or something else?

Do you have any thoughts on Ven Analayo's explanations that I referenced here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30940 ?

:heart:
Mike
I find it quite difficult to fathom some of the language used in the suttas. I'm not even sure if they are really the Buddhas exact words! or have they been re-arranged or badly translated? I get the feeling that nama-rupa is used in two different sequences in DO. The one that I can relate to is when it occurs within the process of perception, the 5 khandhas. How can I speculate on what I cannot observe such as 'with ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be'. This seems to be some process happening before the birth of the body that perhaps can be observed in an Arahant's purview, certainly not mine. We are not even able to be conscious of how light enters the eye and the spectrum of colors stimulate the optic nerve, etc. etc.

Haven't read any of Analayo's explanations. I don't see how they would help me in any way except conceptually and I feel strongly that I don't need any more conceptual food to feed my mental formations. :D

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:41 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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.
Self-view is certainly a fabrication, but in the suttas self-view arises from appropriation of the aggregates as me and mine, not as a direct result of perception ( sanna ). As previously discussed, perception is necessary for survival, so it's a neutral function in Buddhist terms.
Indeed, it is necessary for survival. But how do you separate the aggregates from the rest of the processes? They are a whole system. There are no aggregates without perception and vice versa. U.G. used to say that every cell in the body was a microcosm of the same activities of the whole. This extended to the personalization of the body. So the whole system, in a sense, is self view, that is why we call it 'my' body. But this seems to be happening within the thinking activity which extends itself to the feeling activity and vice versa. Am I missing something?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:06 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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.
I think it is important to say 'selfing' seems to happen after the activity of perception. Since perception is always co-joined with feeling, similar to feeling, it must be entirely unsubjective in nature. Once a mental idea is 'subjective', I think it is best called a 'view' (ditthi) or 'theme' (nimitta).
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are nama-rupa is not an important matter, which is why it is absent in many suttas, & giving priority to it is venturing into solipsism. There is no nama-rupa in the suttas quoted below because it is obviously non-essential. For me, nama-rupa is simply the 'mind-body', which becomes polluted by ignorance to generate craving, selfing & suffering. Once 'nama-rupa' is regarded as "named form", as Patrick Kearney is now doing, it is generally taken to be solipsistically essential & an effort is made to stop naming. It seems logical stopping naming activity can only be temporary state of mind, therefore, cannot be related to permanent Nibbana (which is the permanent destruction of craving).
Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.”

MN 28
Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about) to anything in the world. When he does not cling (think about), he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans.

MN 37
On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

MN 38
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. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible.

MN 148

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:47 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm
.....

I find it quite difficult to fathom some of the language used in the suttas. I'm not even sure if they are really the Buddhas exact words! or have they been re-arranged or badly translated?
Well, of course, that's always a possibility, but the Pali suttas, and their parallels, are what we have to work with.
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm

I get the feeling that nama-rupa is used in two different sequences in DO. The one that I can relate to is when it occurs within the process of perception, the 5 khandhas.
Can you give us some references, please? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm
How can I speculate on what I cannot observe such as 'with ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be'. This seems to be some process happening before the birth of the body that perhaps can be observed in an Arahant's purview, certainly not mine. We are not even able to be conscious of how light enters the eye and the spectrum of colors stimulate the optic nerve, etc. etc.
Perhaps these suttas are not usefully interpreted in such a physical way?
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm
Haven't read any of Analayo's explanations. I don't see how they would help me in any way except conceptually and I feel strongly that I don't need any more conceptual food to feed my mental formations. :D
Of course, it's up to you whether you engage with the material in the suttas, and the other material that I have provided. I have anything to add.

:heart:
Mike

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:45 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:47 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm

I get the feeling that nama-rupa is used in two different sequences in DO. The one that I can relate to is when it occurs within the process of perception, the 5 khandhas.
Can you give us some references, please? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
:heart:
Mike
In the Mahanidana Sutta, DN:15, the Buddha delineates to Ananda, the sequence of DO. Underlining is mine.

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Consciousness
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.

The Buddha says name and form are condition for consciousness. He then says, consciousness is condition for name and form. To me, they are joined to each other, when one manifests, so does the other. He seems to be talking about the origination of existence even before there is birth. I think it is impossible to directly experience this using our intellect. It is a kind of formless origination, not being able to find any other word to describe this.

The second name and form I was mentioning is a mundane one, appearing simply as cognition, identifying and categorizing experience, which is what perception is about. This kind of name and form anyone can recognize and directly observe its process.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:09 am

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:06 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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.
I think it is important to say 'selfing' seems to happen after the activity of perception. Since perception is always co-joined with feeling, similar to feeling, it must be entirely unsubjective in nature. Once a mental idea is 'subjective', I think it is best called a 'view' (ditthi) or 'theme' (nimitta).
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are nama-rupa is not an important matter, which is why it is absent in many suttas, & giving priority to it is venturing into solipsism. There is no nama-rupa in the suttas quoted below because it is obviously non-essential. For me, nama-rupa is simply the 'mind-body', which becomes polluted by ignorance to generate craving, selfing & suffering. Once 'nama-rupa' is regarded as "named form", as Patrick Kearney is now doing, it is generally taken to be solipsistically essential & an effort is made to stop naming. It seems logical stopping naming activity can only be temporary state of mind, therefore, cannot be related to permanent Nibbana (which is the permanent destruction of craving).
I also see 'selfing' in the way you do. When I use the word perception, I was referring to all the constituents of it, as they are all interrelated and happening at lightning speed. I have no problem with visualizing it as happening after perception, as you say. And, indeed, selfing is impersonal as an activity. The result of the subjective personalizes the image and it results in a view, as you describe. I think it's a good description.

Nama-rupa is indeed a difficult, but important part of the Buddha's Mahanidana Sutta. It is a supramundane condition along with consciousness that is condtion for contact, contact condition for feeling, etc. Agreed that stopping naming is a temporary state of mind and not related to cessation of craving. But cessation of craving is also accompanied by nirodha, the 8 emancipations, and the complete cessation of existence.

From the Mahanidana Sutta:
"With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.

"Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he enters and remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known it and realized it in the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none."

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:14 am

OK,thanks. Yes, there are these two cases, with the case you mention and in https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.65 consciousness and name-and-form have a mutual dependency.
“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’ Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’

“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form. It is to this extent that one may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’
However, I'm not sure what you mean by:
The one that I can relate to is when it occurs within the process of perception, the 5 khandhas.
Name-and-form is defined to include perception (saññā).
“And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.

Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro— idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:45 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:47 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:42 pm

I get the feeling that nama-rupa is used in two different sequences in DO. The one that I can relate to is when it occurs within the process of perception, the 5 khandhas.
Can you give us some references, please? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
:heart:
Mike
In the Mahanidana Sutta, DN:15, the Buddha delineates to Ananda, the sequence of DO. Underlining is mine.

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Consciousness
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.

The Buddha says name and form are condition for consciousness. He then says, consciousness is condition for name and form. To me, they are joined to each other, when one manifests, so does the other. He seems to be talking about the origination of existence even before there is birth. I think it is impossible to directly experience this using our intellect. It is a kind of formless origination, not being able to find any other word to describe this.

The second name and form I was mentioning is a mundane one, appearing simply as cognition, identifying and categorizing experience, which is what perception is about. This kind of name and form anyone can recognize and directly observe its process.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5980
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:37 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:48 am
So what does it mean that
with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact;

Is this a temporal sequence, or something else?
I'm not sure what you mean by "temporal", but presumably it conforms with one or both of the two modes of conditionality described in DO:

"'When this is, that is.
"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
"'When this isn't, that isn't.
"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:43 am

Yes, but should we read it as "this occurs then this occurs"?

:spy:
Mike

Dinsdale
Posts: 5980
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:44 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:41 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:47 am
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.
Self-view is certainly a fabrication, but in the suttas self-view arises from appropriation of the aggregates as me and mine, not as a direct result of perception ( sanna ). As previously discussed, perception is necessary for survival, so it's a neutral function in Buddhist terms.
Indeed, it is necessary for survival. But how do you separate the aggregates from the rest of the processes? They are a whole system. There are no aggregates without perception and vice versa. U.G. used to say that every cell in the body was a microcosm of the same activities of the whole. This extended to the personalization of the body. So the whole system, in a sense, is self view, that is why we call it 'my' body. But this seems to be happening within the thinking activity which extends itself to the feeling activity and vice versa. Am I missing something?
As I understand it self-view is a fabrication, and therefore part of the sankharas aggregate. It's like a deeply ingrained assumption. I'll see if I can find some sutta reference(s).
Last edited by Dinsdale on Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5980
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:46 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:43 am
Yes, but should we read it as "this occurs then this occurs"?

:spy:
Mike
I think so, at least in the case of the second mode - one thing must arise before another thing arises. Probably not in the first mode though.

Presumably both modes operate within DO, but working out how and where is far from straightforward.

Interpretation is tricky. For example it's been observed that sanna, vedana and vinnana are conjoined in the suttas - but that doesn't necessarily mean they arise simultaneously.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:44 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:46 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:43 am
Yes, but should we read it as "this occurs then this occurs"?

:spy:
Mike
I think so, at least in the case of the second mode - one thing must arise before another thing arises. Probably not in the first mode though.

Presumably both modes operate within DO, but working out how and where is far from straightforward.

Interpretation is tricky. For example it's been observed that sanna, vedana and vinnana are conjoined in the suttas - but that doesn't necessarily mean they arise simultaneously.
The Mahanidana Sutta seems to corroborate an assumption that self is a view and doesn't state anywhere that I can find, that if this occurs, then self occurs, like the chain of causation.

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
It seems the closest we have to a condition is Vedana, feeling. But as we see, the sutta states that it is just an assumption made. As stated by Dinsdale and Doo Doot, it seems to be a view.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:07 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:09 am
Nama-rupa is indeed a difficult, but important part of the Buddha's Mahanidana Sutta.
"The Buddha's" Mahanidana Sutta? Any evidence for why the Buddha would provide a largely different teaching of D.O., in many aspects?

That is:

1. Exclude ignorance

2. Exclude sankhara

3. Explain consciousness differently?

4. Explain nama-rupa differently, using classic Brahmanistic definitions?

5. Exclude the six sense bases?

6. Explain 'jati' ('birth') differently?

7. Not explain/define aging & death?

:shrug:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], budo, gonflable, justindesilva, Majestic-12 [Bot], SarathW and 77 guests