Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by aflatun » Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:02 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
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.
I noticed, sir! That's generally how I understand it, but I avoid making equivalences with the aggregates because I'm simply unsure.

If we bracket out Nibbana for now, on this reading Vinnana--Nama-Rupa is basically "all possible phenomena." What I find perplexing is connecting the 3rd and 4th links with the sense bases on this reading, as it seems to make the sense bases redundant. There was a thread a long time ago discussing this, I think some people argued the sense bases are assumed within nama-rupa sometimes. Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?

Also, I do take note of DooDoot's great points above and sometimes wonder.




EDIT:
aflatun' wrote:"Maybe there was a sutta that actually omitted them too?"
Yeah, its DN15 lol. Sorry! :rolleye:



DN 15 wrote:“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.
"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
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm

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 ?
:shrug:

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! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:
Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
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.

MN 18
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.

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am

:goodpost:
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm
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 ?
:shrug:

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! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:
Brahmali wrote:The nature of the other four aggregates (nāma-rūpa)
It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
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.

MN 18
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.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

Saengnapha
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am

James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am
:goodpost:
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm
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 ?
:shrug:

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! :sweat:
Sujato wrote:It’s so lovely to see you advocating for the Abhidhammic equation of the four khandhas with nāmarūpa!
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.

MN 18
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.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:08 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am
James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am
:goodpost:
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:08 pm

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.


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:

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.
:twothumbsup:

By the way , I am thinking that DN15 could be a Late sutta !
Therefore , was corrupted IMO .

Well , at least Brahmali stick to the definition , namarupa=four Khandas .

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:50 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:08 am
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?
I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:43 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:50 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:08 am
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?
I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?
Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

Saengnapha
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:18 am

James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:43 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:50 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 am

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.
James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:08 am
Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?
I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?
Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .
Exactly. Not being able to crack the code sets up a host of mental activity that keeps the whole shebang going.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5688
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:58 am

James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:43 am
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .
There seems to be a lack of consensus on quite a number of the nidanas, and how they relate to each other.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5688
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:04 pm

James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am
Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
I think that's the case for all of the nidanas.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:41 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:04 pm
James Tan wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:18 am
Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .
I think that's the case for all of the nidanas.
Maybe the six senses is considered stable in comparison with other nidana .

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:18 pm

James Tan wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:41 pm
Maybe the six senses is considered stable in comparison with other nidana.
According to SN 22.81, it appears the six senses are tainted by the various manifestations of ignorance therefore do not remain stable.
Avijjā­samphas­sa­jena, bhikkhave, vedayitena phuṭṭhassa assutavato puthujjanassa uppannā taṇhā

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.

When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises

SN 22.81
Image Image Image

Dinsdale
Posts: 5688
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:31 am

James Tan wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:41 pm
Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .
Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:42 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:31 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:41 pm
Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .
Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?
I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .
:reading:

James Tan
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:43 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:31 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:41 pm
Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .
Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?
Well , I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness first before you can severe the attachment . :quote:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JamesTheGiant, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 104 guests