James Tan wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:07 pm
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
Anyway , don't get me wrong , I am not being disrespectful .
Ven Sujato sounds lost in scholarly philosophy to me. Lost in Brahmanism, lost in different suttas, lost in Abhidhamma; trying to decide on a philosophical position instead of meditating upon the reality of it. Since so many suttas refer to the arising of consciousness dependent on sense organ & sense object, its seems Sujato's idea of "awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that
" is not always contextually correct but, again, only valid from the perspective of DN 15.
Sujato wrote:This is an Abhidhamma term, which means “the knowledge of distinguishing between mind and body”.
It relies on the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.
Warning: using the Abhidhamma to understand the suttas will only lead to weariness and vexation! You will have to learn a bunch of complicated stuff, and then spend years unlearning it! Like I did!
It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
I recall in one of his books he suggested the common view the Digha Nikaya was "intended for the purpose of propaganda
, to attract converts to the new religion." Yet now he appears to have settled on the Digha Nikaya version of nama-rupa intended to convert non-Buddhists (primarily Brahmans) to Buddhism. His idea that "nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all
" I think has been refuted many times in this thread.
A major problem with Sujato's idea: "consciousness itself depends on nāmarūpa; in other words, our awareness evolves together with the external sense stimuli and the concepts and designations associated with that
" is that it appears to not accommodate for when an external stimuli is experienced for the very 1st time, i.e., an external stimuli that is without any prior known concept and designation. Obviously, consciousness occurs 1st and the concept is formed later, as described in MN 18:
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
As a teacher of concept-less jhana, I think Ven. Sujato may have possibly contradicted his own jhana views by asserting consciousness evolves together with concepts and designations. Since nirodha-samāpatti is the cessation of consciousness together with the cessation of perception & feeling, it seems consciousness may at the very least depend on perception & feeling but not on concepts and designations. Sujato seems to assert the subtle vitakka & vicara of the 1st jhana are not gross concepts & designations, thus Sujato seems to say there are no concepts & designations in the 1st jhana; let alone in the other jhanas. Therefore, for Sujato to claim consciousness always depends on concepts & designations, it seems Ven. Sujato, to not contradict himself, would need to claim there is no consciousness in jhana.
In summary, SN 12.2 clearly says 'nama
' is feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention and 'rupa
' is the form comprised of the four physical elements. DN 15 appears to say 'nama-rupa
' is 'concepts & designations'. Therefore, it seems obvious a person can choose to follow either SN 12.2 or DN 15. I think that the preeminent translator Bhikkhu Bodhi has spent his career flip-flopping between 'mentality-materiality' and 'name-form' and that co-religionists Sujato & Brahmali cannot agree or co-Sangha like Sumedho & Amaro have different ideas about nama-rupa or that Thanissaro also flips & flops shows most Buddhists can't agree on it.