sentinel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:40 am
chownah wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:11 am
I understand 2. Rupa as mataeriality but I do not understnd 1. Rupa as visible form....seems like it should be 1. Rupa as visual object (as shown in the definition given below).
Nyanatiloka's dictionary says "rūpa: (1) corporeality (s. khandha 1); (2) visual object (s. āyatana); (3) fine-material (s. avacara, jhāna)." So it means corporeality sometimes and this is the same as materiality...and...it means the visual object sometimes and this is the same as the thing which stimulates the eye which is light....these being my interpretations but I think they are very very widely held.
Where have you seen form applied to the other 4 sense objects?.....I don't recall ever having seen that.
Exactly , when our eyes looking outwards the sense object is regarded as form . When we say eyes is rupa it is materiality .
If rupa alone in used it can be regarded as form or materiality .
However , when apply to namarupa it does not correlate well if we were to take rupa as form or nama as name .
Here is the definition of name and form taken from the link in dinsdale's previous post:
And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
....so one can just change it back to the pali "nama-rupa" in place of the english "name and form" giving this:
And what, bhikkhus, nama-rupa? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called nama. The four great elements and the rupa derived from the four great elements: this is called rupa. Thus this nama and this rupa are together called nama-rupa.
I put this here since I'm getting confused about how people are discussing this stuff.
It appears that rupa is clearly the half of nama-rupa and it refers to the physical elements and these are also often called materiality and materiality is usually considered to be the basis for form (the presentation of physical objects called "their form"). But rupa when the word is being used to define vision can also be said to appear under nama in that contact is part of nama and the visual sense objects are an integral part of contact....can't have visual contact without visual sense objects.
BUT....I WANT TO STRESS.....these are two different meanings unless you want to think that an actual physical object is what stimulates the eye......if you want to think that a material object enters the eye and stimulates the sensitive part then you can reasonably accept that rupa means the same thing in both cases......there have been some people in ancient greek (if I remember correctly) who theorized that this was how it happened. In any event.....we now know that it is light which is what stimulates the eye and usually we consider light to not be part of the "object" we are viewing....it can be argued that it is the light which gets absorbed by an object which actually becomes relevant to its materiality and that light never enters the eye....the eye get's stimulated by light which does not partake of the materiality of the object....sort of ironic I guess.