Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 10:22 am
Contact ( phassa ) is the meeting of sense-base, sense-object and sense-consciousness, with sense-consciousness arising in dependence on sense-base and object ( that makes sense practically speaking because you need the ability to see and something to be seen in order to have visual consciousness ).

Sanna really is recognition in the suttas. Here's another description of sanna ( perception ) from MN43:

"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"
"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

You could also describe sanna as naming, and in the suttas it is colours which are named or recognised ( categorised? ). So I don't agree with the OP premis that "named form" is an accurate description of nama-rupa. The nama aspect includes a range of mental functions and activities, and naming ( sanna ) is only one of them.

Note that sanna is a function of all six sense bases, so it's not just about how sense-data is processed by the five "physical" senses - see here in SN25 for example:

"At Savatthi. "Monks, perception of forms is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

What the suttas describe doesn't map directly onto a modern understanding of perception and neuroscience, so it's probably best not to muddle them up, or try to force one framework into the other ( square pegs and round holes! ).

chownah wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:19 pm I am not following the discussion carefully since I already have a view of these things which I find adequate for my practice but I follow casually because I am always ready to learn more.

The topic of the difficulty to making sense of the terms and assembling them into a model interests me and I have thought about it alot. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that while us modern folk mostly have a model where the brain does all the data processing and since us modern fold also mostly associate the brain with the mind those old time people in the buddha's time did not necessarily have that delineation. For instance they might very well have thought that alot of the data processing for the eye (for example) actually went on in the eye and not the brain....this could explain why there is eye consciousness. Us modern folk mostly think that consciousness happens in the brain mostly or completely and most modern folk don't think that there is consciousness happening in the eye......so some people talk about the external eye and the internal eye with the internal eye being a mental representation of the actual physical eye. I have not problems with any of this but the point I want to make is that understanding what is going on is quite different I think if one is of the view that there is actually a kind of consciousness with assosciated perception, feeling etc. all on its own without recourse to the mind.
Maybe everyone already has considered this.....I havent' been following closely so if I'm just wasting time here I appologize.
chownah

Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:31 pm This is where introspective attention applies. You discover for yourself how the body functions apart from the interpretations that we get from external sources. This is what matters most, don't you think?

chownah wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:56 am

Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:31 pm This is where introspective attention applies. You discover for yourself how the body functions apart from the interpretations that we get from external sources. This is what matters most, don't you think?

Yes. and to extend what you say....my view is that through introspective attention one can see that what we see as how the body functions is fabricated and not self.
chownah

Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm When we discuss these things, the translations of words can vary quite a bit. I see that we think of the same processes but use a different word for it. Let's not make it a sticking point. Perhaps we should stick to English to describe the process of perception and name and form. ...

mikenz66 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:19 am Hi Saengnapha,

Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm When we discuss these things, the translations of words can vary quite a bit. I see that we think of the same processes but use a different word for it. Let's not make it a sticking point. Perhaps we should stick to English to describe the process of perception and name and form. ...

I'm a little confused about what you are trying to get at here. Namarupa is a tricky concept, and I thought it would be helpful to discuss it, particularly from the point of view of Ven Nanananda's Sermons, Ven Analayo's lectures on them, and some of the other sources that I have pointed out. There are, as Dinsdale points out, some detailed descriptions in various suttas of what the terms mean, and how they relate to each other. Of course, it's possible to have other interpretations of the cognitive processes, but what I was interested in doing here was to explore how they are actually described in the suttas.


Mike

chownah wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:19 pm The topic of the difficulty to making sense of the terms and assembling them into a model interests me and I have thought about it alot. One thing that I have not seen mentioned is that while us modern folk mostly have a model where the brain does all the data processing and since us modern fold also mostly associate the brain with the mind those old time people in the buddha's time did not necessarily have that delineation. For instance they might very well have thought that alot of the data processing for the eye (for example) actually went on in the eye and not the brain....this could explain why there is eye consciousness. Us modern folk mostly think that consciousness happens in the brain mostly or completely and most modern folk don't think that there is consciousness happening in the eye......so some people talk about the external eye and the internal eye with the internal eye being a mental representation of the actual physical eye. I have not problems with any of this but the point I want to make is that understanding what is going on is quite different I think if one is of the view that there is actually a kind of consciousness with assosciated perception, feeling etc. all on its own without recourse to the mind.

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

chownah wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:56 pm

chownah wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah

Have you any constructive comment to make on what I have said? I am getting very tired of your sarcasm and patronising tone.

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:20 am Having done a bit more research, I'm pretty sure that the nama aspect of nama-rupa is equivalent to the three aggregates of sanna, vedana and sankharas. So nama-rupa is equivalent to the aggregates minus consciousness, ie sanna, vedana, sankharas and rupa.

Possibly you could describe nama-rupa as responding to form? Though the absence of consciousness in nama-rupa makes such descriptions somewhat inadequate IMO.

What I find intriguing is how the early section of DO separates out consciousness from the other factors - it seems significant. In some versions of DO nama-rupa and vinnana are mutually dependent, while in others nama-rupa arises in dependence on vinnana.

chownah wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:52 pm

Dinsdale wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:25 pm Looking at the passage below from the Loka Sutta, would it make any substantive difference to the meaning we substituted "eye" with "ability to see" or "functioning eyesight" or whatever? I don't think it would. I think it is just saying that for to see something, we need to have both the ability to see and something to look at. We now know that there is a large area of the brain devoted to visual processing, but I don't think that changes the basic principle.

"The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling..."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Good. The way you interpret and understand things it makes no difference.....or whatever. I'm glad that you have an interpretation which you find satisfactory.....hooray!
chownah