Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
James Tan
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:31 am
James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:36 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:27 pm

I can give you an answer if you are not doot/twilight, are you? I just don't want to talk to that guy because i've had the pleasure and don't want any of it also i suspect that he is multi-accounting and so i asked you. Read this post of mine if still unclear and you can negatively reply categorically to the question i will explain it to my best ability;
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31302#p459834
Don't worry , I'm not doot or twilight .
James, do you really expect to get a definitive answer to your questions from anyone? All you could do is agree or disagree. Can you see the meaninglessness of such activity? Chasing these kinds of questions can only bring problems because any answer you accept or reject requires defending it. It is all thinking about thinking, mental masturbation, if you will. Wanting 'to know' is the problem, not the answer. This becomes more and more obvious if you are honest with yourself and allow yourself to feel this deeply and not try to think your way into 'understanding'. It doesn't work.
I appreciate your concern and
I understand what you are trying to conveys , however , if you have never listened to ug or anyone else before , you will never come to this conclusion which means you are also convincing yourself your understanding is not working for you . Can you see the meaninglessness of your activities in this forum also ?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:55 am

James Tan wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:04 pm
Namarupa give rise to six internal external sphere ?
Could you explain what is mind to you?
When the mind is enlightened (unless teaching people or obtaining requisites) the mind abides in inwardly in meditation, like this: :meditate: The eye, ear, nose, tongue & external body are shut-off or closed down; like closing the doors & windows in a house.

But when ignorance arises & controls the mind, the mind abides externally looking for sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches to indulge in via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & body. These sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches and thoughts about them called "external ayatana' in the suttas.
The six internal bases should be understood. There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base.

The six external bases should be understood.’ There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odour-base, the flavour-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood. ’

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn148
Therefore, in my opinion, when the mind-body is controlled by ignorance, the sense organs also can be controlled by ignorance, like in this photo.

Image
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am

James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 am
Assuming you already read the post i linked to i will ask if you can see that;
Nama&Rupa & Five Aggregates have their comparative merits as concepts when it comes to explaining reality. Does this make sense?
It is a practical thing, Five aggregates are a model describing the Human existence.
Nama&Rupa is a model describing material and immaterial existence (human included).

The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.

Saying "5 Aggregates" or just "Aggregates" the difference there alone is big in what you can communicate with it.

Saying that Nama&Rupa = 5 Aggregates=Rupa/Arupa States that is also wrong

Saying that Nama&Rupa = Aggregates=Rupa/Arupa States i think it is a "trick-statement" because using the restricted form of "5 Aggregates" being used as merely "Aggregates" to describe Arupa States and one could explain it. That is why i stated it.

Saying that 5 Aggregates describe Arupa States is wrong because Rupa is one of the 5 Aggregates so it does not apply to those particular states of existence.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:18 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
Assuming you already read the post i linked
I tried to read it but i was unable to linguistically comprehend it. Possibly, you might consider starting with the basics of Buddhism.
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
Nama&Rupa & Five Aggregates have their comparative merits as concepts when it comes to explaining reality. Does this make sense?
Not to me because the suttas appear to say the aggregates are things 'clung to' & things 'to be comprehended' (rather than mere descriptive concepts).
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
It is a practical thing, Five aggregates are a model describing the Human existence.
In the suttas, the five aggregates are the things clung to or mistaken as 'self'.
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
Nama&Rupa is a model describing material and immaterial existence (human included).
The suttas say nama&rupa is feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention and the form comprised of earth, wind, fire & water; as follows:
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.

SN 12.2
The suttas do not say nama-rupa is form, feeling, perception, mental formations & consciousness.
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.
The sutta don't appear to say this.
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
Saying that 5 Aggregates describe Arupa States is wrong because Rupa is one of the 5 Aggregates so it does not apply to those particular states of existence.
In the suttas, existence (bhava) is the 10th condition of DO rather than the 4th.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:26 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:18 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
The difference is in their utility and the exact meaning communicated.
The sutta don't appear to say this.
Your screen name is DooDoot,
is this also to be refuted by not being in the Sutta?
DooDoot wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:18 am
It was linguistically so incomprehensible, I was not even able to refute it.
the absence of proof is not the proof of abscence.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:30 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:26 am
Your screen name is DooDoot,
is this also to be refuted by not being in the Sutta?
But it appears to be in the suttas. In the suttas, it seems to be explained that "names" are not the "aggregates", as follows:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

SN 5.10
In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation

MN 98
Possibly SN 22.48 can help us distinguish between mere aggregates & aggregates subjected to clinging. Try starting with the basics. Buddhism 101 rather than Buddhism 909.
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:32 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:30 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:26 am
Your screen name is DooDoot,
is this also to be refuted by not being in the Sutta?
But it appears to be in the suttas. In the suttas, it seems to be explained that "names" are not the "aggregates", as follows:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

SN 5.10
i just have trouble taking you seriously mate, you have trolled me so much and it was wp.
Unless you take on a more humble attitude i can't talk to you as that is against direct instruction from The Tathagata not to mention my own tastes.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
...
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,[1] doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.[2] Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.
Even replying to you compromises my training.
AN 2.23 PTS: A i 59
II,iii,3
Abhasita Sutta: What Was Not Said
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1997

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
Id quote from AN 4.73
Sappurisa Sutta: A Person of Integrity

but i will just leave it here...
If other people find it interesting i can explain more.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:50 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:38 am

:focus:

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

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:44 am

James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:56 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:31 am
James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 5:36 am


Don't worry , I'm not doot or twilight .
James, do you really expect to get a definitive answer to your questions from anyone? All you could do is agree or disagree. Can you see the meaninglessness of such activity? Chasing these kinds of questions can only bring problems because any answer you accept or reject requires defending it. It is all thinking about thinking, mental masturbation, if you will. Wanting 'to know' is the problem, not the answer. This becomes more and more obvious if you are honest with yourself and allow yourself to feel this deeply and not try to think your way into 'understanding'. It doesn't work.
I appreciate your concern and
I understand what you are trying to conveys , however , if you have never listened to ug or anyone else before , you will never come to this conclusion which means you are also convincing yourself your understanding is not working for you . Can you see the meaninglessness of your activities in this forum also ?
Surely, you are not saying that it is possible not to be influenced by anyone or any religion/philosophy. Since we are all under the influence, you think it becomes necessary to understand in order to throw off the influence, to be free, to attain nibbana. The problem is you nor I, nor anyone else ever throws off the influence because we just replace it with something else. Trying to get out of this influence is the only problem that I see. So it is meaningless whether I speak on this forum or another, or no forum. I am sure my understanding has not changed the fundamental issue of personal existence. I am also sure that no amount of thinking about all this has been of much use to me or anyone else. It is kind of like a sick joke listening to people repeating the same stuff over and over again. That's all I'm saying.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1783
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by rightviewftw » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:59 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:18 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:57 am
Assuming you already read the post i linked
I tried to read it but i was unable to linguistically comprehend it. Possibly, you might consider starting with the basics of Buddhism.
How is this a natural course of action for me having made a statement you cannot disprove.
Why would i be inclined to change anything when unrefuted?

You are again talking crazy here.

The natural course of action for you being unable to refute is consider that you are now in either two of these realities;

1) You are too dumb/incapable to refute but it is possible
2) It is unrefutable

There is no 3rd.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:07 am

:focus:
Here, bhikkhus, some misguided men learn the Dhamma—discourses, stanzas, expositions, verses, exclamations, sayings, birth stories, marvels, and answers to questions—but having learned the Dhamma, they do not examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. Not examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they do not gain a reflective acceptance of them. Instead they learn the Dhamma only for the sake of criticising others and for winning in debates, and they do not experience the good for the sake of which they learned the Dhamma. Those teachings, being wrongly grasped by them, conduce to their harm and suffering for a long time. Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.

Suppose a man needing a snake, seeking a snake, wandering in search of a snake, saw a large snake and grasped its coils or its tail. It would turn back on him and bite his hand or his arm or one of his limbs, and because of that he would come to death or deadly suffering. Why is that? Because of his wrong grasp of the snake. So too, here some misguided men learn the Dhamma…Why is that? Because of the wrong grasp of those teachings.

MN 22

James Tan
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:47 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 9:55 am
James Tan wrote:
Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:04 pm
Namarupa give rise to six internal external sphere ?
Could you explain what is mind to you?
When the mind is enlightened (unless teaching people or obtaining requisites) the mind abides in inwardly in meditation, like this: :meditate: The eye, ear, nose, tongue & external body are shut-off or closed down; like closing the doors & windows in a house.

But when ignorance arises & controls the mind, the mind abides externally looking for sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches to indulge in via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & body. These sights, sounds, smells, tastes & touches and thoughts about them called "external ayatana' in the suttas.
The six internal bases should be understood. There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base.

The six external bases should be understood.’ There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odour-base, the flavour-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood. ’

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn148
Therefore, in my opinion, when the mind-body is controlled by ignorance, the sense organs also can be controlled by ignorance, like in this photo.

Image
Questions : :rolleye:

What is mind ? Nama = Mind ?

Where is the mind ? Which part of us to be regarded as mind ? Or located where ?

You said namarupa is mindbody ,
but ,
Let's see ,
if Nama = Mind ?
If Rupa = Body ?


" 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 " .

Sn 12.2

So ,
feeling to be regarded as mind / nama ?
Contact to be regarded as mind / nama ?

The 4 great elements is called Rupa ,
However ,
the 4 great elements is not Body / Kaya ?

Body in Pali is Kaya not Rupa .

:oops: :rofl: :juggling:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2695
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by DooDoot » Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:56 am

James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:47 pm
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 " .

Sn 12.2

So ,
feeling to be regarded as mind / nama ?
Contact to be regarded as mind / nama ?
In my opinion, you must meditate upon my post to at least be able to consider what i am saying (rather than think too much). To me, 'nama' is a certain stage in mental fruition. I will give a simple example. Please try to listen.

1. Its 6.00am in the morning & you have made the intention to meditate for 1 hour. This intention is 'nama' (4th link).

2. However, at 6.30am, contrary to your intention (4th link), the uncontrolled thought arises in the mind: "I am hungry". This thought is a 'sankhara' (2nd link) arising from ignorance (1st link); knowing this thought is consciousness (3rd link). Taking some internal pleasure in that thought is feeling & internal contact (nama 4th link).

3. Now, at this stage of 'nama-rupa' (4th link), there are two options or two paths:

(a) Right path: 'Nama' (4th link), having clear contact with that (2nd link) sankhara, perceives this is a wrong thought & makes the intention to abandon this thought and give attention to the Dhamma for the abandoning of that (2nd link) thought.

or

(b) Wrong path: Nama-rupa (4th link) is controlled by that ignorant (1st link) thought (2nd link) and breaks the meditation. The body (rupa 4th link) stands ups and the ayatana (5th link sense organs) look for food in the fridge to eat. Seeing the food (6th link) in the fridge is contact. Feeling (7th link) & craving (8th link) arises from that contact. You engage in attachment (9th link) to the thought: "I am hungry" (2nd link) by eating food (10th link).

Therefore, in the example above, 'nama-rupa' are merely one stage of mental fruition. In this example, mental & bodily aggregates have occurred at many links. But nama-rupa is the specific link where, if mindfulness & wisdom are lacking, ignorance will causes the nama-rupa to purse external sense objects & external sense gratification.
James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:47 pm
The 4 great elements is called Rupa ,
However ,
the 4 great elements is not Body / Kaya ?

Body in Pali is Kaya not Rupa .
The word 'kaya' means 'group' or 'collection', such as in the words 'Nikaya' or 'sakkaya'. It does not necessarily mean 'the body', unless referring to a collection of different bodies, such as in the Anapanasati Sutta, where the breathing is called 'a body among other bodies'. Suttas such as DN 15 refer to 'nama-kaya' or 'mental-group'. 'Kaya' does not necessarily mean the physical body in the suttas.

James Tan
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by James Tan » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:05 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:56 am
James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:47 pm
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 " .

Sn 12.2

So ,
feeling to be regarded as mind / nama ?
Contact to be regarded as mind / nama ?
In my opinion, you must meditate upon my post to at least be able to consider what i am saying (rather than think too much). To me, 'nama' is a certain stage in mental fruition. I will give a simple example. Please try to listen.

1. Its 6.00am in the morning & you have made the intention to meditate for 1 hour. This intention is 'nama' (4th link).

2. However, at 6.30am, contrary to your intention (4th link), the uncontrolled thought arises in the mind: "I am hungry". This thought is a 'sankhara' (2nd link) arising from ignorance (1st link); knowing this thought is consciousness (3rd link). Taking some internal pleasure in that thought is feeling & internal contact (nama 4th link).

3. Now, at this stage of 'nama-rupa' (4th link), there are two options or two paths:

(a) Right path: 'Nama' (4th link), having clear contact with that (2nd link) sankhara, perceives this is a wrong thought & makes the intention to abandon this thought and give attention to the Dhamma for the abandoning of that (2nd link) thought.

or

(b) Wrong path: Nama-rupa (4th link) is controlled by that ignorant (1st link) thought (2nd link) and breaks the meditation. The body (rupa 4th link) stands ups and the ayatana (5th link sense organs) look for food in the fridge to eat. Seeing the food (6th link) in the fridge is contact. Feeling (7th link) & craving (8th link) arises from that contact. You engage in attachment (9th link) to the thought: "I am hungry" (2nd link) by eating food (10th link).

Therefore, in the example above, 'nama-rupa' are merely one stage of mental fruition. In this example, mental & bodily aggregates have occurred at many links. But nama-rupa is the specific link where, if mindfulness & wisdom are lacking, ignorance will causes the nama-rupa to purse external sense objects & external sense gratification.
James Tan wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:47 pm
The 4 great elements is called Rupa ,
However ,
the 4 great elements is not Body / Kaya ?

Body in Pali is Kaya not Rupa .
The word 'kaya' means 'group' or 'collection', such as in the words 'Nikaya' or 'sakkaya'. It does not necessarily mean 'the body', unless referring to a collection of different bodies, such as in the Anapanasati Sutta, where the breathing is called 'a body among other bodies'. Suttas such as DN 15 refer to 'nama-kaya' or 'mental-group'. 'Kaya' does not necessarily mean the physical body in the suttas.
Wow , this meditation is messy . I will leave that to you .

SarathW
Posts: 9961
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

Post by SarathW » Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:35 am

HHDL said that body and mind survive in three levels.
The way I understand they all called namarupa.
Gross - Human body
Middle (subtlea0 - Rupavacara and Arupavacara
Very subtle - the time of death

Off topic but just a matter of interest HHDL said Buddha's mind continue after Parinibbana.

“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, Pseudobabble, rcteutsch, Yahoo [Bot] and 105 guests