Namarupa as name & form or mentality & materiality ?

[sentinel]

Is there a difference between name and form with mentality and materiality ?

[chownah]

I think that the people who use the terms mentality and materiality use them as meaning the same as name and form.....so for people who speak both ways they are talking about namarupa.

Of course there is always a difference of opinion over the meaning of pali words and how they should be translated......so one can always discuss whether nama is actually mentality or name and whether rupa is actually materiality or form. Is this the discussion you are looking for?
chownah

[sentinel]

I think that the people who use the terms mentality and materiality use them as meaning the same as name and form.....so for people who speak both ways they are talking about namarupa.

Of course there is always a difference of opinion over the meaning of pali words and how they should be translated......so one can always discuss whether nama is actually mentality or name and whether rupa is actually materiality or form. Is this the discussion you are looking for?
chownah

Yes , but I guess both of them point to different meaning . It would be better to stick to either one of them if both are meant to be same .
If rupa is form , that has different meaning with materiality . Form is about appearance or image , whereas materiality refer to quality of matter or tangible substance .
Name is designation or labeling something whereas mentality is about mind or psychological aspect .

[SteRo]

“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.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi

If one only replaces 'name' by 'mentality' and 'form' by 'materiality' in that definition that's fine. But is there always awareness of that definition when 'name & form' or 'mentality & materiality' are applied?

[DooDoot]

If rupa is form , that has different meaning with materiality . Form is about appearance or image , whereas materiality refer to quality of matter or tangible substance .

Are you saying the text below is about "appearance or image"? If so, why does each individual person have the same appearance or image? Do medical surgeons perform surgery upon appearances & images?

And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property.

"And what is the water property? The water property may be either internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's water, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's water, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal water property. Now both the internal water property & the external water property are simply water property.

"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, & savored gets properly digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now both the internal fire property & the external fire property are simply fire property.

"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The below is just "image & appearance"?

And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[sentinel]

Are you saying the text below is about "appearance or image"? If so, why does each individual person have the same appearance or image? Do medical surgeons perform surgery upon appearances & images?

Translations was done by many person , confusion arises due to several version of expression . understanding the words appears problematic if the translator did not explained for the chosen of particular term !

[Spiny Norman]

Is there a difference between name and form with mentality and materiality ?

Looking at the nidana "definition" in SN12.2, I think that "mentality-materiality" is a reasonable translation of "nama-rupa", since it seems to reflect the content of each aspect. "Nama" is comprised of mental factors, while "Rupa" is comprised of the four great elements.

Translating it literally as "name and form" seems pointless to me, it doesn't explain anything. Or is it really an attempt to change the "definition" provided by the suttas, in order to support a particular interpretation?

More generally, this is the problem we always have with discussions about DO. It seems like people often want to mess about with the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2, in order to make them fit their preferred interpretation. Square pegs and round holes.
How about just accepting the definitions as they are, and then seeing what makes sense?

[DooDoot]

Translations was done by many person , confusion arises due to several version of expression . understanding the words appears problematic if the translator did not explained for the chosen of particular term !

It appears self-evident by the above reply that you had nothing to say according to the Teachings. The impression is your contribution to this topic (you started) is finished.

[sentinel]

It appears self-evident by the above reply that you had nothing to say according to the Teachings. The impression is your contribution to this topic (you started) is finished.

You appear to have wrong impression thinking but only negation in all conversation or communication .
The puzzlement is the translator supposed to be expert in Pali ( E.g. sujato ) , I try to understand it in English . Rupa in the texts were referred as four great elements but why do a Pali expertise translate it as form ? I checked out the agama and it appears they translated as 色法 which is similar to matter or materiality . But form appear to resemble translation of Mahayana text which is 相 or appearance . Earlier on I said for nama it is a mental aspects not name or labeling .
Now the only problem with namarupa in the context of dependent origination , many people refer it as "object" or a person mental&matter which I think is not correct .
IMO namarupa is a framework that represents the mentality and materiality aspects of six faculties and six elements .

[Chat2enlighten]

I bet it is body and mind, or materiality and mentality.Why?
It is because DO is explaining how suffering arises in mind and not finding it from else where.
If name and form, or designation and form is adopted for the translation it equals to intervention of external factor causing suffering.

[DooDoot]

The puzzlement is the translator supposed to be expert in Pali ( E.g. sujato )

I think anyone with knowledge of Dhamma would place Ven. Sujato near the bottom of the list of translators.

Rupa in the texts were referred as four great elements but why do a Pali expertise translate it as form ?

Because they are not experts. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated his MN with mentality-materiality but then changed his SN & AN to name-form. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro & Sujato flip-flop often. Obviously "rupa" means "materiality', when the suttas refer to rupa as head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine

[justindesilva]

The puzzlement is the translator supposed to be expert in Pali ( E.g. sujato )

I think anyone with knowledge of Dhamma would place Ven. Sujato near the bottom of the list of translators.

Rupa in the texts were referred as four great elements but why do a Pali expertise translate it as form ?

Because they are not experts. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated his MN with mentality-materiality but then changed his SN & AN to name-form. Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro & Sujato flip-flop often. Obviously "rupa" means "materiality', when the suttas refer to rupa as head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine

Rupa expressed as form is categorised as apo tejo vayo patavi akasa with varna ganda rasa oja that is again subdivided up to a total of 28 elements ( as heard in sermons). These elements create the appearance or forms that we smell see touch hear and feel along with which we imagine as salayatana.
Nama is pancendriya as vedana sangna sankara vingana.
In a personal discussion with a monk of knowledge in abhidamma explained that as an analogy we can compare form to be hardware and nama to be software in a computer or form (rupa) as what is seen and nama as manifestations unseen.

[sentinel]

sounds, odors, flavors, sense contacts , these cannot be translated as form .

[chownah]

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

[form]

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

You seems to have given me an explanation for something that puzzled me for a long time. Why in many occasion, form is only mentioned instead of ......smell, sound etc.