Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
sentinel
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by sentinel »

chownah wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:36 am
sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:48 am
sounds, odors, flavors, sense contacts , these cannot be translated as form .
The term "form" has different meanings. One meaning is tied up with the material elements and seems to be pretty clearly connected with physicality.....another meaning for "form" is the sensory object which is present at the eye just like "sound" is the sensory input for the ear. When form is taken as the sensory object for the eye it is usually connected with light which is the thing which is the external object present at the eye.

I have no proof of this but I think that "form" was used as the external eye object because at the time of the buddha how vision worked was not really known by anyone much less by common people and the common knowledge of the time was that it was some kind of physicallity of what is seen that was present at the eye. I have read that this concept was one of the ancient theories of vision but I have no evidence that this was the theory accepted at the buddha's time and place.
chownah
When we say rupa is form , it only refer to Visible object or image or appearance , it is 1 of the 6 sense object . ( Forms , sounds , odors , flavors , sensations and thoughts ) . So , how then form being synonymously and continuously apply for the other 4 sense object which I think is erroneous , illogical and irrational .
Therefore , what make sense in translating namarupa in dependent origination should be as mentality and materiality .
Not name and form .

1. Rupa as visible form
2. Rupa as materiality .
Sallekha Sutta.

“Meditate … do not delay, lest you later regret it.”

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by Spiny Norman »

sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:48 am
sounds, odors, flavors, sense contacts , these cannot be translated as form .
In the suttas rupa (form) is usually defined as the four great elements, which are earth, water, wind and fire. It's an ancient classification of the "physical" world, and not exclusive to Buddhism.
The closest modern equivalent I know of is the four phases of matter, ie solid, liquid, gas and plasma.
So I would say that "materiality" is a good translation for rupa.

Note that sense objects (sights, sounds, etc) are derived form, ie derived from the four great elements of rupa.
"Visible form" = derived form = "sights" = sense-objects for the eye.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by salayatananirodha »

name-and-form, not mentality-materiality
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html

chownah
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by chownah »

sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:35 am

When we say rupa is form , it only refer to Visible object or image or appearance , it is 1 of the 6 sense object . ( Forms , sounds , odors , flavors , sensations and thoughts ) . So , how then form being synonymously and continuously apply for the other 4 sense object which I think is erroneous , illogical and irrational .
Therefore , what make sense in translating namarupa in dependent origination should be as mentality and materiality .
Not name and form .

1. Rupa as visible form
2. Rupa as materiality .
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.
chownah

pegembara
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by pegembara »

Rupa is a Sanskrit word meaning "form," which refers to the appearance of physical objects in yogic, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. It is said that rupa is not just the physical existence of an object, but also its tangible nature. Therefore, the concept of rupa also encompasses the impression that an object can make on the senses.

https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5739/rupa

How do experience a flower? Through sight, smell, taste, touch, memory ie. via the senses.
Rupa" means matter. Practically speaking, rupa refers to bare sense-impressions: color, sound, taste, scent and tactile sensation (tactile sensation is experienced as temperature, pressure, and motion). Although we don't usually think of them this way, in Buddhist philosophy sense-impressions are considered a type of matter. They are, in fact, our only direct experience of the latter.

Nama and rupa are the two things left when we give up names and concepts. Strictly speaking, they are the only proper objects of mindfulness.
Nama and rupa serve two functions in our moment-to-moment experience: 1) the function of knowing, and 2) the function of being known.

The faculty that knows is nama, the mind. It is aware of something. Let's call it the "knower" (but this "knower" should not be equated with a self; it is impersonal, anatta.) The x being known is called the "object." An object by very definition lacks awareness.

Rupas, material forms, are always objects, not knowers. Rupa is not conscious. Sound cannot hear. Color cannot see. Material phenomena must be "touched" by a mind in order to be experienced. When the mind is aware of color, seeing happens. When it's aware of sound, hearing occurs. Color and sound are objects.

Each moment of life contains one "knower" and one object. When these two things come together, experience happens. For example, sound vibrations are rupa; the mind perceives the sound. When you move your arm, the motion is rupa; nama, the mind, is aware of the movement. A fragrance is rupa; the mind perceives the scent. Color is rupa; nama, the mind, cognizes color.

http://www.vipassanadhura.com/whatis.htm
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

sentinel
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by sentinel »

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.
chownah
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 .
Sallekha Sutta.

“Meditate … do not delay, lest you later regret it.”

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by Spiny Norman »

salayatananirodha wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:01 am
name-and-form, not mentality-materiality
"Name and form" is just a literal translation which doesn't describe anything.

Check the nidana definition for nama-rupa in SN12.2. It's pretty clear there that "mentality-materiality" is a better and more descriptive translation.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:09 am, edited 6 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:11 am
sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 6:35 am

When we say rupa is form , it only refer to Visible object or image or appearance , it is 1 of the 6 sense object . ( Forms , sounds , odors , flavors , sensations and thoughts ) . So , how then form being synonymously and continuously apply for the other 4 sense object which I think is erroneous , illogical and irrational .
Therefore , what make sense in translating namarupa in dependent origination should be as mentality and materiality .
Not name and form .

1. Rupa as visible form
2. Rupa as materiality .
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.
chownah
Rupa = "form" = four great elements = "materiality".

Upada-rupa = "derived form" = "sights" = "visible form" = sense-object.

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Upada-rupa
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by chownah »

pegembara wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:44 am
Rupa is a Sanskrit word meaning "form," which refers to the appearance of physical objects in yogic, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy. It is said that rupa is not just the physical existence of an object, but also its tangible nature. Therefore, the concept of rupa also encompasses the impression that an object can make on the senses.
Your post is not appropriate for the general theravada subforum.....it would be appropriate if it was in the connections to other paths subforum. I think the reason that the site here has been structured this way is that we want to discuss theravada things here based on theravada principles and bringing non-theravada philosophy does nothing to clarify the theravada position and might confuse people into thinking that those other doctrines can be considered as theravadan.
chownah

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by Spiny Norman »

"Mind and matter" would probably work too.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by chownah »

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.
chownah
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.
chownah

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by Spiny Norman »

I guess contact (phassa) is classed as a "mental" event, though it arises in dependence upon sense-base and sense-object (both derived from rupa), and also on consciousness (vinnana).

I don't think the mechanics of vision are particularly important here. I think the point is that sense-consciousness depends on there being something to sense. That "something" is derived from the four great elements of rupa.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by salayatananirodha »

Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:43 am
salayatananirodha wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:01 am
name-and-form, not mentality-materiality
"Name and form" is just a literal translation which doesn't describe anything.

Check the nidana definition for nama-rupa in SN12.2. It's pretty clear there that "mentality-materiality" is a better and more descriptive translation.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi
form is not 'the four great elements', it's 'the four great elements and the form dependent on them'
form is mind-made, a discrimination between this and otherwise
name is mental sure but so is consciousness. therefore 'mentality' includes more than 'name' and is imprecise
furthermore nāma literally means name in another sutta, like 'my name is sakka'
mind precedes all phenomena anyhow, don't perceive form to be objective
16. 'In what has the world originated?' — so said the Yakkha Hemavata, — 'with what is the world intimate? by what is the world afflicted, after having grasped at what?' (167)

17. 'In six the world has originated, O Hemavata,' — so said Bhagavat, — 'with six it is intimate, by six the world is afflicted, after having grasped at six.' (168)

- Hemavatasutta


links:
https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/index.htm
http://thaiforestwisdom.org/canonical-texts/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://www.dhammatalks.org/index.html

pegembara
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by pegembara »

If one were to look at the interplay between namarupa and vinnana, namarupa is the "known" ie. the seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, felt, perceived,(re)-cognised. Basically the objects of six senses(ayatana) or the conditioned or the All.

Mind-matter sounds reasonable.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

chownah
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

Post by chownah »

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.
Here is a way to interpret this which tends to unify the two definitions of "form".....in the above just replace "form" with "visual sense object"but only do this in the one place which I have shown:
And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the visual sense object derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.
I guess that someone who knows some pali should weigh in on what the pali word is that is used to represent the form which is derived from the great elements.
chownah

Post Reply