Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am
This explanation from Ven Nanananda might be helpful:

The Law of Dependent Arising (Paṭicca Samuppāda)
The Secret of Bondage and Release
Library Edition
by Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.0.pdf
Primarily,
"...recognition is not by ‘name’ in the conventional and linguistic
sense. But by means of feeling, perception, intention, contact and
attention."
Isn't recognition just the function of sanna ( perception )? I don't see a strong argument here for including the other factors in that specific function.
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am
"Some confuse the issue by arguing that contact has to
precede feeling. However much we point out with quotations,
they insist on putting contact first."
It seems reasonable to put contact first, given that it precedes feeling in DO. Is there any sutta support for putting feeling first?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16979
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:00 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am
Isn't recognition just the function of sanna ( perception )? I don't see a strong argument here for including the other factors in that specific function.
Perhaps take it up with the Buddha, or with the Brahminical concept that he was makeing use of:
viewtopic.php?t=7464
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am
"Some confuse the issue by arguing that contact has to
precede feeling. However much we point out with quotations,
they insist on putting contact first."
It seems reasonable to put contact first, given that it precedes feeling in DO. Is there any sutta support for putting feeling first?
It does not precede namarupa, though. I think that's what he's discussing at that point.

Mike

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

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:07 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am
This explanation from Ven Nanananda might be helpful:

The Law of Dependent Arising (Paṭicca Samuppāda)
The Secret of Bondage and Release
Library Edition
by Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.0.pdf
Primarily,
"...recognition is not by ‘name’ in the conventional and linguistic
sense. But by means of feeling, perception, intention, contact and
attention."
Isn't recognition just the function of sanna ( perception )? I don't see a strong argument here for including the other factors in that specific function.
mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am
"Some confuse the issue by arguing that contact has to
precede feeling. However much we point out with quotations,
they insist on putting contact first."
It seems reasonable to put contact first, given that it precedes feeling in DO. Is there any sutta support for putting feeling first?
Perception is broken down into 5 constituents. These 5 parts happen so fast that I don't believe they can be separated. We are talking about the lightning communication between senses and the part of the brain receiving the impressions and processing them. If you had to break them down in order, sañña and vedanā would initiate the process, I believe. Rupa, the mental image of perception would be the result and nama, the naming of it. It is one process like the flow of blood that is not controllable.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:40 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:23 am
Nanananda wrote:...recognition is not by ‘name’ in the conventional and linguistic sense. But by means of feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention."

It seems reasonable to put contact first, given that it precedes feeling in DO. Is there any sutta support for putting feeling first?
Hi Dinsdale

What you said above about the 12-links of DO is correct however what Nanananda was discussing was the 4th link of nama-rupa, which is defined in the core suttas as follows:
And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of mind-contact. This is called feeling.

And what, bhikkhus, is contact? There are these six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. This is called contact.

And what, bhikkhus, are the six sense bases? The eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, the mind base. These are called the six sense bases.

And what, bhikkhus, is nama-and-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa. Thus this name and this form are together called nama-and-rupa.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

chownah
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:20 am

....and don't forget the Mahavedalla Sutta which says:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
and
"Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them."
So it seems that discernment, consciousness, feeling, and perception are all meant to be inseperably linked.
chownah

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:41 am

chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:20 am
So it seems that discernment, consciousness, feeling, and perception are all meant to be inseperably linked.
Maybe. But feeling, perception & consciousness appear to be mentioned in many different links in dependent origination. Therefore, I think the topic here is how they function in respect to the nama-rupa 4th link rather than say the vedana 7th link.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

chownah
Posts: 8259
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:54 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:41 am
chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:20 am
So it seems that discernment, consciousness, feeling, and perception are all meant to be inseperably linked.
Maybe. But feeling, perception & consciousness appear to be mentioned in many different links in dependent origination. Therefore, I think the topic here is how they function in respect to the nama-rupa 4th link rather than say the vedana 7th link.
I don't know much about the nama rupa links or even what vedana is......but the sutta which I brought seems to have general descriptions of how these things are and how they inter-relate. It doesn't say that this inter-relationship only applies here or there....it talks as if this is their inherent nature always and everywhere that they apply. If you think this is wrong and this inter-relationship does not apply in some instances then that is fine with me...we all interpret the suttas based on our current views so it is inevitable that we all would interpret this differently.....if you have any sutta quote which indicates that these inter-relationship is at times not happening then that would be good, but if not then it doesn't matter.
chownah

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5959
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:24 am

chownah wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:54 am
the sutta which I brought seems to have general descriptions of how these things are and how they inter-relate.
Sure. This certainly appears to be an inherent consideration. :)
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:14 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:40 am
What you said above about the 12-links of DO is correct however what Nanananda was discussing was the 4th link of nama-rupa, which is defined in the core suttas as follows:
And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of mind-contact. This is called feeling.

And what, bhikkhus, is contact? There are these six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. This is called contact.

And what, bhikkhus, are the six sense bases? The eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, the mind base. These are called the six sense bases.

And what, bhikkhus, is nama-and-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa. Thus this name and this form are together called nama-and-rupa.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2
Sure. But if contact precedes feeling in one part of DO, it seems contradictory to claim that feeling precedes contact in another part of DO ( in nama-rupa ). And I don't think the order in which the nama-rupa factors appear in SN12.2 is necessarily significant.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:24 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:07 am
Perception is broken down into 5 constituents. These 5 parts happen so fast that I don't believe they can be separated. We are talking about the lightning communication between senses and the part of the brain receiving the impressions and processing them. If you had to break them down in order, sañña and vedanā would initiate the process, I believe. Rupa, the mental image of perception would be the result and nama, the naming of it. It is one process like the flow of blood that is not controllable.
As I understand it, rupa represents the "raw data" which is then recognised by the function of sanna ( perception ), that leads to a mental image. In any case it seems that sanna and vedana are inseperably linked.

I am less clear about where contact, volition and attention come in. Later in DO contact precedes feeling, and therefore presumably contact also precedes perception. Volition and attention involve choice, so presumably they could occur both before and after sanna/vedana.

Looked at another way, nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, and is therefore equivalent to the five aggregates minus consciousness. Possibly nama-rupa is also equivalent to the six classes of sense-object.

"And what, bhikkhus, is nama-and-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa. Thus this name and this form are together called nama-and-rupa."
SN12.2
Last edited by Dinsdale on Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

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

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:50 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:14 am
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:40 am
What you said above about the 12-links of DO is correct however what Nanananda was discussing was the 4th link of nama-rupa, which is defined in the core suttas as follows:
And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of mind-contact. This is called feeling.

And what, bhikkhus, is contact? There are these six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. This is called contact.

And what, bhikkhus, are the six sense bases? The eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, the mind base. These are called the six sense bases.

And what, bhikkhus, is nama-and-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa. Thus this name and this form are together called nama-and-rupa.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.2
Sure. But if contact precedes feeling in one part of DO, it seems contradictory to claim that feeling precedes contact in another part of DO ( in nama-rupa ). And I don't think the order in which the nama-rupa factors appear in SN12.2 is necessarily significant.
Vedanā & saññā (Feeling & Contact) arise together. Cannot separate. All of it is automatic. It is the way the brain processes the impulses from the senses. Whatever we wind up calling it, it is an activity that is necessary for survival and inherent in the body. The personalizing of what we experience is the 'I' making. We think there is someone tangible that is experiencing all of this. The insight/penetration into this activity of 'I' making and its ephemeral nature is the important point of it all. This is where discomfort, dukkha, begins and ends. Maybe a Buddha can see all the parts of this clearly, but I think this would be a kind of supramundane ability that we are not privy to in our conditioned state.

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

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:55 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:24 am
Looked at another way, nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, and is therefore equivalent to the five aggregates minus consciousness. Possibly nama-rupa is also equivalent to the six classes of sense-object.
Why minus consciousness? Is it possible to have the senses without consciousness? How would you know what you experience? Seems impossible unless I am misunderstanding you.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:58 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:50 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:14 am
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:40 am
What you said above about the 12-links of DO is correct however what Nanananda was discussing was the 4th link of nama-rupa, which is defined in the core suttas as follows:

Sure. But if contact precedes feeling in one part of DO, it seems contradictory to claim that feeling precedes contact in another part of DO ( in nama-rupa ). And I don't think the order in which the nama-rupa factors appear in SN12.2 is necessarily significant.
Vedanā & saññā (Feeling & Contact) arise together. Cannot separate. All of it is automatic. It is the way the brain processes the impulses from the senses. Whatever we wind up calling it, it is an activity that is necessary for survival and inherent in the body. The personalizing of what we experience is the 'I' making. We think there is someone tangible that is experiencing all of this. The insight/penetration into this activity of 'I' making and its ephemeral nature is the important point of it all. This is where discomfort, dukkha, begins and ends. Maybe a Buddha can see all the parts of this clearly, but I think this would be a kind of supramundane ability that we are not privy to in our conditioned state.
Sure, it's difficult to separate out these various functions ( activities? ), even assuming everyone agrees what they actually are.

Clearly vedana/sanna/vinnana are conjoined and inseparable, but in DO vedana ( and therefore sanna and vinnana ) arise in dependence upon contact.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:00 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:55 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:24 am
Looked at another way, nama-rupa represents everything we can be conscious of, and is therefore equivalent to the five aggregates minus consciousness. Possibly nama-rupa is also equivalent to the six classes of sense-object.
Why minus consciousness? Is it possible to have the senses without consciousness? How would you know what you experience? Seems impossible unless I am misunderstanding you.
I mean that nama-rupa represents objects of consciousness, or what we are conscious of. Similarly the other four aggregates are objects of consciousness. And sense-objects.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

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

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:11 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:58 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:50 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:14 am


Sure. But if contact precedes feeling in one part of DO, it seems contradictory to claim that feeling precedes contact in another part of DO ( in nama-rupa ). And I don't think the order in which the nama-rupa factors appear in SN12.2 is necessarily significant.
Vedanā & saññā (Feeling & Contact) arise together. Cannot separate. All of it is automatic. It is the way the brain processes the impulses from the senses. Whatever we wind up calling it, it is an activity that is necessary for survival and inherent in the body. The personalizing of what we experience is the 'I' making. We think there is someone tangible that is experiencing all of this. The insight/penetration into this activity of 'I' making and its ephemeral nature is the important point of it all. This is where discomfort, dukkha, begins and ends. Maybe a Buddha can see all the parts of this clearly, but I think this would be a kind of supramundane ability that we are not privy to in our conditioned state.
Sure, it's difficult to separate out these various functions ( activities? ), even assuming everyone agrees what they actually are.

Clearly vedana/sanna/vinnana are conjoined and inseparable, but in DO vedana ( and therefore sanna and vinnana ) arise in dependence upon contact.
It seems to me that the experience of existence, both the subjective and objective realms, is something impossible to grasp because we (the mental & sensual processes) cannot separate themselves from existence itself. IOTW, there is no possible observation of this that can take place. It is all mental imagery taking place in the brain. The 'I' maker is the only problem, the personalization of the impersonal. We are activities, machines, if you will, not independent observers and philosophers that occupy time and space. :D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], chownah and 155 guests