Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 7019
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:42 am

I hope I'm not just agitating the waters but to recap:
From mn 43: Discernment and consciousness are conjoined...not disjoined
From mn 43: Feeling, consciousness, and perception are conjoined....not disjoined
From sn12.67: Nama-rupa and consciousness are dependent on each other like two sheaves of reeds leaning against each other.
From dn15: Nama is Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama
From dn 15 : Rupa is The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa
So....it is reasonable to conclude with venn diagrams (or should we call them zen diagrams) that discernment, consciouness, feeling, consciousness, perception, consciousness, nama-rupa, feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention, rupa, the four great elements, form derived from the four great elements......ALL OF THESE can be reasonably considered to be inseperable.....I'm using "reasonably" very loosely here because I am sure that many people here will not consider this to be reasonble and I don't want them to abuse me. :jumping:
I've included some things twice if they might have slightly different meanings in different contexts....but even in those different contexts the juxtaposition seems like it might be credible....
....and to go further....the body is made of the four great elements and the six internal sense objects are parts of the body so they should be included to...and they each have an associated consciousness (which appears everywhere)....and depending on how the process of vision was understood it might be that the external sense objects were taken to be form which is on the list so maybe they should be included too....

Is there no meaning in this?....it seems really really relevant to me but I am biased...maybe it is meaningless....a mere coincidence....an artifact of the translation process.....I don't know.

chownah

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by aflatun » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:29 pm

chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:42 am
I hope I'm not just agitating the waters but to recap:
From mn 43: Discernment and consciousness are conjoined...not disjoined
From mn 43: Feeling, consciousness, and perception are conjoined....not disjoined
From sn12.67: Nama-rupa and consciousness are dependent on each other like two sheaves of reeds leaning against each other.
From dn15: Nama is Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama
From dn 15 : Rupa is The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa
So....it is reasonable to conclude with venn diagrams (or should we call them zen diagrams) that discernment, consciouness, feeling, consciousness, perception, consciousness, nama-rupa, feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention, rupa, the four great elements, form derived from the four great elements......ALL OF THESE can be reasonably considered to be inseperable.....I'm using "reasonably" very loosely here because I am sure that many people here will not consider this to be reasonble and I don't want them to abuse me. :jumping:
I've included some things twice if they might have slightly different meanings in different contexts....but even in those different contexts the juxtaposition seems like it might be credible....
....and to go further....the body is made of the four great elements and the six internal sense objects are parts of the body so they should be included to...and they each have an associated consciousness (which appears everywhere)....and depending on how the process of vision was understood it might be that the external sense objects were taken to be form which is on the list so maybe they should be included too....

Is there no meaning in this?....it seems really really relevant to me but I am biased...maybe it is meaningless....a mere coincidence....an artifact of the translation process.....I don't know.

chownah
I agree with the principle Chownah, and that's very much how I see it too. The lack of independence makes permanence, satisfactoriness and self impossible, hence the three characteristics are derivative of conditionality, and when that priority is reversed people get into trouble. Self is an independent thing that is dependent on nothing and simultaneously that by which everything else is...and this is perfectly impossible. The interdependence of consciousness and nama-rupa kind of covers the whole thing in a way.

I also agree with your prior post about differing interpretations, etc. The main point for me is the conditionality, the specific factors highlighted are just exemplars of the principle. What all variants have in common is the undermining of Atta, usually via the whipping boy of consciousness (showing its dependence on name and form, or on sensory modality and "object")...and showing us "where" things can go wrong.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

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

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

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

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by aflatun » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:51 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:05 am

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.

chownah
You might find this post (#7) interesting
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

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

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

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

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

DooDoot
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:02 pm

chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:42 am
From dn15: Nama is Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama
From dn 15 : Rupa is The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa
For me, most of what you wrote in your post sounds reasonable; apart from the above because the above is from SN 12.2 (and not from DN 15). The dispute in this thread is Patrick Kearney attempting to fit the above round peg from SN 12.2 into the square hole of DN 15 below:
Those qualities, traits, signs and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body.... to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description... to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness.

DN 15 https://suttacentral.net/en/dn15
In SN 12.2, nama-rupa includes 'perception' & 'intention' where as DN 15 appears to only include 'description', including 'themes' or 'nimitta'. Based on the suttas, 'nimitta' appear to be sankhara khandha (thought fabrications) rather than sanna khandha (perception). Descriptions do not appear related to intention.
Passion is a making of themes (nimitta). Aversion is a making of themes. Delusion is a making of themes.

MN 43
And what is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen? There is the theme (nimitta) of beauty. To foster inappropriate attention to it: This is the food for the arising of unarisen sensual desire, or for the growth & increase of sensual desire once it has arisen.

And what is the food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is the theme (nimitta) of resistance. To foster inappropriate attention to it: This is the food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen

SN 46.51

chownah
Posts: 7019
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:42 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:02 pm
chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:42 am
From dn15: Nama is Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama
From dn 15 : Rupa is The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa
For me, most of what you wrote in your post sounds reasonable; apart from the above because the above is from SN 12.2 (and not from DN 15). The dispute in this thread is Patrick Kearney attempting to fit the above round peg from SN 12.2 into the square hole of DN 15 below:
My point is that this is an entanglement of ideas. From this entanglement one can focus on some things or other things and find pegs and holes of various sizes and shapes. People do this in different ways because they come to the dhamma with different abilities, interests, understandings, discernment, needs, woes, etc.......seems unlikely that you can find any singular peg or hole which all of those people will relate to.....it seems unlikely to me that the buddha would have tried to offer a singular peg or hole as the answer for everyone. If the buddha was trying to describe a singular peg and hole then he was a very bad teacher.
chownah
edit: going one step further....if there exists one peg and one hole then I think with the countless millions of discerning buddhists which have been grinding away at this puzzle for over 2000 years would have found it by now......and if it was found it would be of extreme value and easily accepted by alot of people and unlikely to be lost (My Precious)....did people lose the knowledge of how to make fire?.....
chownah

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:51 am

aflatun wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:51 pm
You might find this post (#7) interesting
Thanks, yes that thread about namarupa on Sutta Central is very useful.

As I said in my OP:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
... western philosopy and "spirituality" have this idea of a "mind" or "spirit", which is the important bit, and a "body", which isn't so important. However, it's clear that the body and the heart/mind are not really separable. One's moods can affect the body (e.g. when angry) and vice-versa.
This is nicely summarised here:
Sujato wrote: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... pa/4600/23
...
This then creates a dualistic mind/body analysis. The primary mode of analysis is to distinguish between the mind and the body, and again, this is never found in the suttas. The suttas are much too sophisticated to fall into this kind of trap. They never treat the mind and the body as separate entities, or posit them as primary forms of analytical categories.

This mind/body dualism lies at the heart of much Western philosophy, such as Descartes, and has been responsible for many of the most insoluble and damaging implications of western philosophy. Indeed, I believe that the reason we are subject to such an influential extremist materialism today, with its far-reaching and devastating consequences in terms of divorcing fact and value, lies precisely because the West has never escaped the dysfunctional abyss of mind/body dualism.

When the Buddha discussed the mind and the body, he always placed their relation foremost, not their separation. This is apparent in the commentarial attempt to justify the so-called nāmarūpapariccheda. This means the "cutting between, complete separation of mind and body". But this is not found anywhere in the EBTs, so to support it they use a passage on meditative vision. But that passage speaks not of the separation between these things, but quite the opposite: that they are bound together, dependent on each other.
...
:heart:
Mike

DooDoot
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:38 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:42 am
My point is that this is an entanglement of ideas. From this entanglement one can focus on some things or other things and find pegs and holes of various sizes and shapes. People do this in different ways because they come to the dhamma with different abilities, interests, understandings, discernment, needs, woes, etc.......seems unlikely that you can find any singular peg or hole which all of those people will relate to.....it seems unlikely to me that the buddha would have tried to offer a singular peg or hole as the answer for everyone. If the buddha was trying to describe a singular peg and hole then he was a very bad teacher.
I think you need to explain exactly how the D.O. works in DN 15 before making the above point. For example, nama-rupa in DN 15 is translated thus:
DN 15 Nama-Rupa wrote:Those qualities, traits, signs and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body.... to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description... to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness
DN 15 continues as follows, referring to 'describing self' in relation to materiality & immateriality:
DN 15 Describing Self wrote:In what ways, Ānanda, does one describing self describe it? Describing self as having material form and as limited, one describes it thus: ‘My self has material form and is limited.’ Or describing self as having material form and as infinite, one describes it thus: ‘My self has material form and is infinite.’ Or describing self as immaterial and limited, one describes it thus: ‘My self is immaterial and limited.’ Or describing self as immaterial and infinite, one describes it thus: ‘My self is immaterial and infinite.’
Therefore, when DN 15 refers to 'consciousness' & 'birth' ('jati'), is DN 15 saying they are merely 'descriptions'? That is, is DN 15 saying for a description of a "child" in a womb or a description of a "young boy or girl" to occur, this is dependent on consciousness (awareness; feeling; sensing; cognition) of the child in the womb or dependent on consciousness of the form of the boy or girl? Or for the idea/concept of gods, humans, reptiles, etc, is nama-rupa required to describe these "beings" or "births"; that this birth is dependent upon description (nama-rupa)? :shrug:
DN 15 Consciousness wrote:If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?

If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?

If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would mentality-materiality grow up, develop, and reach maturity?
DN 15 Birth wrote:If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state
My question here is sincere rather than rhetorical (given I have meditated upon D.O. for many years, but only on the SN 12.2 version). I have read commentaries by Patrick Kearney, Ajahn Brahm & Bhikkhu Bodhi imputing a reincarnation theory upon their beloved DN 15 but none of these commentaries make any logical sense to me. Therefore, what exactly is DN 15 teaching? :shrug: Personally, I don't know. But my impression is DN 15 is not teaching about reincarnation of consciousness but about how description (nama-rupa) ultimately leads to craving, attachment, becoming, descriptive ideas about different beings (or 'birth') and thus suffering. But when there is no description or no ideas about 'beings' or 'birth', there is no suffering. :shrug:

James Tan
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:51 am
aflatun wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:51 pm
You might find this post (#7) interesting
Thanks, yes that thread about namarupa on Sutta Central is very useful.

As I said in my OP:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
... western philosopy and "spirituality" have this idea of a "mind" or "spirit", which is the important bit, and a "body", which isn't so important. However, it's clear that the body and the heart/mind are not really separable. One's moods can affect the body (e.g. when angry) and vice-versa.
This is nicely summarised here:
Sujato wrote: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... pa/4600/23
...
This then creates a dualistic mind/body analysis. The primary mode of analysis is to distinguish between the mind and the body, and again, this is never found in the suttas. The suttas are much too sophisticated to fall into this kind of trap. They never treat the mind and the body as separate entities, or posit them as primary forms of analytical categories.

This mind/body dualism lies at the heart of much Western philosophy, such as Descartes, and has been responsible for many of the most insoluble and damaging implications of western philosophy. Indeed, I believe that the reason we are subject to such an influential extremist materialism today, with its far-reaching and devastating consequences in terms of divorcing fact and value, lies precisely because the West has never escaped the dysfunctional abyss of mind/body dualism.

When the Buddha discussed the mind and the body, he always placed their relation foremost, not their separation. This is apparent in the commentarial attempt to justify the so-called nāmarūpapariccheda. This means the "cutting between, complete separation of mind and body". But this is not found anywhere in the EBTs, so to support it they use a passage on meditative vision. But that passage speaks not of the separation between these things, but quite the opposite: that they are bound together, dependent on each other.
...
:heart:
Mike
Hi , but sujato didn't explain what namarupa actually is ? He seems right that it is about relation rather than something separate . However , Namarupa is not to be treated as mentality materiality aka as a single unit .

Dinsdale
Posts: 5356
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:44 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:51 am
As I said in my OP:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
... western philosopy and "spirituality" have this idea of a "mind" or "spirit", which is the important bit, and a "body", which isn't so important. However, it's clear that the body and the heart/mind are not really separable. One's moods can affect the body (e.g. when angry) and vice-versa.
Sure, but is anyone here arguing differently? I still don't see a problem with discussing mentality and materiality ( whatever ) as different aspects of the whole, and for that reason I still don't see a problem with the hyphen in nama-rupa.

Similarly when discussing the aggregates, we recognise they are different aspects of a whole system, but we can still examine them separately. We might refer to "rupa-vinnana-vedana-sanna-sankharas", but we probably wouldn't refer to "rupavinnanavedanasannasankharas". This is significant because nama-rupa is equivalent to rupa-vedana-sanna-sankharas. In any case I view such formulations as different models of experience. There are various models in the suttas, the point to remember is that they are just models.

Anyway, coming back to the OP, I still don't get "named form" as a translation for nama-rupa. Possibly "responding to form" would be closer, though the absence of consciousness in nama-rupa is problematic.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5356
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:15 am

aflatun wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:29 pm
The interdependence of consciousness and nama-rupa kind of covers the whole thing in a way.
I suggested earlier in the thread that nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, ie the objects of consciousness, ie the aggregates of rupa, sanna, vedana and sankharas.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:00 pm

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

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:06 pm

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

:heart:
Mike

James Tan
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:16 pm

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

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

You are looking at a tree , both related , but both being different also .
What I meant is nama rupa can't be treated as a piece of "thing" , I meant nama rupa is a substitute for a processes .

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:48 pm

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

James Tan
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:07 pm

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

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

Therefore , you are back to square one .

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:54 pm

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

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

:heart:
Mike

James Tan
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pm

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

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

:heart:
Mike

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15402
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:11 pm

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

:heart:
Mike

James Tan
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:19 pm

Hi ,

Never mind about namarupa , anyway thanks for the links you provided .
:anjali:

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Zom » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:23 pm

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justindesilva, pinit29 and 28 guests