Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
one_awakening
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:04 am

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

Post by one_awakening » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:24 am

sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:53 am

...thinking but only negation in all conversation or communication
Correct
“You only lose what you cling to”

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:25 am

salayatananirodha wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:14 pm
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
I don't see how form is "mind-made", it's just matter, the basis for sense-experience. Hence the distinction between mind and matter, or mentality and materiality, or whatever.

I agree it's the mind which recognises and discriminates, but there needs be something to recognise and discrimate - and that is rupa. Rupa is like the "raw material" of our experience.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:27 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:01 am
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
That would work, but why not leave out the "visual" in order to include all the sense-bases/objects?
So: "The four great elements and the sense-objects derived from them."

I think in the Abhidhamma "the form derived from the four great elements" includes a number of other things, but I'm not sure it would be productive to explore that!
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8565
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:15 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:27 am
chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:01 am
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
That would work, but why not leave out the "visual" in order to include all the sense-bases/objects?
So: "The four great elements and the sense-objects derived from them."

I think in the Abhidhamma "the form derived from the four great elements" includes a number of other things, but I'm not sure it would be productive to explore that!
I used visual sense object because it is called rupa....the other senses objects are not called rupa....I'm trying to explore different ways to understand the rupa part of namarupa....the other sense objects don't have any bearing on this because they are not called rupa I think.....what I would like to know is what word for "form" is used in the saying "the four great elemts and the form derived from them".
chownah

justindesilva
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

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

Post by justindesilva » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:43 am

sentinel wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:37 am
Is there a difference between name and form with mentality and materiality ?
Nama rupa is very well described in Sammaditthi sutta.
I wish that by reading this sutta one can alleviate doubts.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:36 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:15 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:27 am
chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:01 am

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:

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
That would work, but why not leave out the "visual" in order to include all the sense-bases/objects?
So: "The four great elements and the sense-objects derived from them."

I think in the Abhidhamma "the form derived from the four great elements" includes a number of other things, but I'm not sure it would be productive to explore that!
I used visual sense object because it is called rupa....the other senses objects are not called rupa....I'm trying to explore different ways to understand the rupa part of namarupa....the other sense objects don't have any bearing on this because they are not called rupa I think.....what I would like to know is what word for "form" is used in the saying "the four great elemts and the form derived from them".
chownah
With some translations on Sutta Central you can select to have both English and Pali displayed, line-by-line. You should be able to do that for this version of SN12.2:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato

Looking at the description of the rupa aspect of nama-rupa, you will see that it includes both the four great elements, (mahabhuta) and the rupa derived from them (eg sense-objects).
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8565
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:45 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:36 am
With some translations on Sutta Central you can select to have both English and Pali displayed, line-by-line. You should be able to do that for this version of SN12.2:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato

Looking at the description of the rupa aspect of nama-rupa, you will see that it includes both the four great elements, (mahabhuta) and the rupa derived from them (eg sense-objects).
Thanks for telling me about that feature at SC. The only definition of rupa which mentions the senses is that rupa means the visual sense object.....it does not mention the others. Under namarupa in the rupa presentation it calls the "rupa derived from" with the pali "upādāyarūpaṃ" which means "derived rupa"....it does not use a pali word to indicate if it is referring to physical form or if it is refering to the visual object.
I have not seen anything anywhere which indicates that the term rupa is defined to include all five (or six) sense objects.....all that I have found I have found is reference to the visual object.....it seems that using the word rupa to mean all 5/6 sense objects is just your idea....I'd be glad to see something that indicates otherwise.
chonwah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:16 pm

chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:45 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:36 am
With some translations on Sutta Central you can select to have both English and Pali displayed, line-by-line. You should be able to do that for this version of SN12.2:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato

Looking at the description of the rupa aspect of nama-rupa, you will see that it includes both the four great elements, (mahabhuta) and the rupa derived from them (eg sense-objects).
Thanks for telling me about that feature at SC. The only definition of rupa which mentions the senses is that rupa means the visual sense object.....it does not mention the others. Under namarupa in the rupa presentation it calls the "rupa derived from" with the pali "upādāyarūpaṃ" which means "derived rupa"....it does not use a pali word to indicate if it is referring to physical form or if it is refering to the visual object.
I have not seen anything anywhere which indicates that the term rupa is defined to include all five (or six) sense objects.....all that I have found I have found is reference to the visual object.....it seems that using the word rupa to mean all 5/6 sense objects is just your idea....I'd be glad to see something that indicates otherwise.
chonwah
There is no reference to the eye or vision in the Pali above, its just a general reference to derived form.

Anyway, I'm saying that all five sense objects are included in the upada-rupa (derived form) category. It wouldn't make sense for upada-rupa to only mean "visible form", which is the sense-object for the eye. The other four sense-objects (sounds, sensations, flavours and odours) are also clearly derived from the four great elements.

By all means investigate this yourself if you're not convinced. Investigate "rupa-khandha".
Last edited by Dinsdale on Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8565
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:44 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:16 pm
chownah wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:45 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:36 am
With some translations on Sutta Central you can select to have both English and Pali displayed, line-by-line. You should be able to do that for this version of SN12.2:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato

Looking at the description of the rupa aspect of nama-rupa, you will see that it includes both the four great elements, (mahabhuta) and the rupa derived from them (eg sense-objects).
Thanks for telling me about that feature at SC. The only definition of rupa which mentions the senses is that rupa means the visual sense object.....it does not mention the others. Under namarupa in the rupa presentation it calls the "rupa derived from" with the pali "upādāyarūpaṃ" which means "derived rupa"....it does not use a pali word to indicate if it is referring to physical form or if it is refering to the visual object.
I have not seen anything anywhere which indicates that the term rupa is defined to include all five (or six) sense objects.....all that I have found I have found is reference to the visual object.....it seems that using the word rupa to mean all 5/6 sense objects is just your idea....I'd be glad to see something that indicates otherwise.
chonwah
There is no reference to the eye or vision in the Pali above, its just a general reference to derived form.

Anyway, I'm saying that all five sense objects are included in the upada-rupa (derived form) category. It wouldn't make sense for upada-rupa to only mean "visible form", which is the sense-object for the eye. The other four sense-objects (sounds, sensations, flavours and odours) are also clearly derived from the four great elements.

By all means investigate this yourself if you're not convinced.
I have never seen anthing that supports the idea that the term rupa is used to mean the 5/6 sense objects....all that I have seen is that it refers to the visual sense object. It seems that you are making an unsupported assertion if what you are saying is that rupa is defined as meaning the 5/6 sense objects. If you can not or will not support your assertion then that is up to you. I won't go chasing after something for which I have seen no evidence and expect to find no evidence....been there...done that....
chownah

User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

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

Post by salayatananirodha » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:23 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:25 am
salayatananirodha wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:14 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:43 am


"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
I don't see how form is "mind-made", it's just matter, the basis for sense-experience. Hence the distinction between mind and matter, or mentality and materiality, or whatever.

I agree it's the mind which recognises and discriminates, but there needs be something to recognise and discrimate - and that is rupa. Rupa is like the "raw material" of our experience.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.009.than.html wrote:At Savatthi. "Monks, the earth property is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The liquid property... The fire property... The wind property... The space property... The consciousness property is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
being inconstant, alterable, they are conditioned.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html wrote:
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible.

"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.

"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible.

"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
you appear to be professing one of 62 views refuted in digha nikaya 1 about the world being eternal https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
if the four great elements were unconditioned they would persist whether or not there was a mind to perceive them.
Screen Shot 2019-11-04 at 10.10.47.png
Screen Shot 2019-11-04 at 09.58.12.png
Screen Shot 2019-11-04 at 09.58.30.png
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

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:47 pm

Sorry but I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post to the discussion. I didn't say rupa was eternal or whatever, I said it wasn't mind-made.

Have another look at the nidana "definition" for nama-rupa in SN12.2, where the rupa aspect is straightforwardly described as the four great elements and derived form. Those aren't "mind-made".
What IS mind-made is the perception of rupa, but of course perception is an aspect of nama (mentality).

As for your final quote, it seems to be based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of DO which is not supporteby SN12.2 in particular, and the DO suttas in general.
Much is made of the interplay between between vinnana and nama-rupa, but the suttas don't describe a "vortex" or "whirlpool", just a mutual dependence, like sheaves of wheat propping each other up. And of course most DO dont describe this mutual dependence, they just describe nama-rupa arising in dependence upon vinnana. But of course the majority version of DO is ignored because it doesn't fit with the theory. And nidanas are stretched out of shape in order to make them fit.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

form
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

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

Post by form » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:28 pm

There come a time when knowledge on this appears directly to the student when all the conditions are present. No point arguing based on ancient records that has been distorted by time and personal interpretations.

chownah
Posts: 8565
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:05 am

The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
I've been thinking about this definition of form which comes from a link on the first page of this topic. If one looks at the logic of this there seems to be an error. It is clear (at least to me) that the definition of form includes the four great elements....but....what is strange is that the definition of form also includes form. I can think that it is saying that not all form is rupa in that it only says that form derived from the four great elements are included in the definition of form. Thus it seems that some form is form but some form is not form....on the other hand it could be that it is saying that all form is derived from the four great elements but if this is so then what is this form that is form?.....it is a circular definition since what it is defining is a key element of the definition.

I never thought of this before because I alway interpreted the definition above to be saying that the four great elements and the derived visual object called form constitute what is called form....but having looked at the pali words used it seems that the word for derived form really has nothing pointing to the visual object.

So far I haven't been able to figure this out and I'm starting to just think of it as one of those sutta definitions which really isn't a definition like where consciousness is called that because it cognizes.....or perception is called that because it perceives......not really definitions at all....
chownah

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

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

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:21 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:05 am
The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
I've been thinking about this definition of form which comes from a link on the first page of this topic. If one looks at the logic of this there seems to be an error. It is clear (at least to me) that the definition of form includes the four great elements....but....what is strange is that the definition of form also includes form. I can think that it is saying that not all form is rupa in that it only says that form derived from the four great elements are included in the definition of form. Thus it seems that some form is form but some form is not form....on the other hand it could be that it is saying that all form is derived from the four great elements but if this is so then what is this form that is form?.....it is a circular definition since what it is defining is a key element of the definition.

I never thought of this before because I alway interpreted the definition above to be saying that the four great elements and the derived visual object called form constitute what is called form....but having looked at the pali words used it seems that the word for derived form really has nothing pointing to the visual object.

So far I haven't been able to figure this out and I'm starting to just think of it as one of those sutta definitions which really isn't a definition like where consciousness is called that because it cognizes.....or perception is called that because it perceives......not really definitions at all....
chownah
I think it's just saying that rupa includes the four great elements, and what is derived from them (eg sense-objects). Note that we don't experience the four great elements directly, they are a theory of matter, an abstraction.

With a modern view, I think it's equivalent to the distinction between the feel of water on your skin (derived form), and being told that water is a fluid rather than a solid, gas or plasma (four great elements).
Buddha save me from new-agers!

chownah
Posts: 8565
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

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

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:39 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:21 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:05 am
The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.
I've been thinking about this definition of form which comes from a link on the first page of this topic. If one looks at the logic of this there seems to be an error. It is clear (at least to me) that the definition of form includes the four great elements....but....what is strange is that the definition of form also includes form. I can think that it is saying that not all form is rupa in that it only says that form derived from the four great elements are included in the definition of form. Thus it seems that some form is form but some form is not form....on the other hand it could be that it is saying that all form is derived from the four great elements but if this is so then what is this form that is form?.....it is a circular definition since what it is defining is a key element of the definition.

I never thought of this before because I alway interpreted the definition above to be saying that the four great elements and the derived visual object called form constitute what is called form....but having looked at the pali words used it seems that the word for derived form really has nothing pointing to the visual object.

So far I haven't been able to figure this out and I'm starting to just think of it as one of those sutta definitions which really isn't a definition like where consciousness is called that because it cognizes.....or perception is called that because it perceives......not really definitions at all....
chownah
I think it's just saying that rupa includes the four great elements, and what is derived from them (eg sense-objects). So we don't experience the four great elements directly, they are like a theory of matter, an abstraction.

With a modern view, I think it's equivalent to the distinction between the feel of water on your skin (derived form), and being told that water is a fluid comprised of molecules containing one hydrogen and two oxygen atoms (elements).
The sutta doesn't say "what is derived from them"....it says "the form derived from the four great elements".....and the pali word is just your usual generic word for form (rupa). You keep hammering on the idea that all of the sense objects are defined as being derived form. I have never seen a sutta reference which says this....as far as I know the only sense object which is described as being "form" in the suttas is the visual sense object.....do you have a sutta reference which supports your assertion?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Tangent-Man and 54 guests