Nāmarūpa - Named Form?

[Saengnapha]

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

[sentinel]

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

[Saengnapha]

All this seems like an obsession to me. We want to know. We seek. We suffer. We think about thinking, only. This can't lead to anything but dukkha. You are not able to figure all this out in your head. Once you stop trying to do this, you begin to see the folly of all attempts at intellectual comprehension. There is no view that is going to survive our death. All of them are impermanent, unsatisfying, and are not mine.

Ultimately yes , all view still a view only .
When you write this , there is something going on in your head , is not this intellectual comprehension ?

I'm not saying that nothing should be going on in our heads, just not this kind of thinking. I think it is quite useless after a certain point. Intellectual comprehension is the problem, no? We keep thinking about it. That is intellectual comprehension, over and over, like a broken record. Letting it go is the next step, but most are too afraid to give up their views. Who would they be, then?

Of course , if you don't understand the dhamma you still can practise . But , normally as a buddhist they will try to understand what is the meaning and how to practise it . The problem is , they seems to be unable to "crack" the "code" yet !
That's why they are not sure if they are trainings Buddha's dhamma without missing something or important point .
For example , the meaning of namarupa , there is no consistency by the expertise or scholars today . Therefore , they are learning Pali , Sanskrit , vedas or brahmanism etc in order for them to have a better understanding of it . But , this is no guarantee also .
If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

Exactly. Not being able to crack the code sets up a host of mental activity that keeps the whole shebang going.

[Spiny Norman]

If you can't get the true meaning of namarupa , you are unable to understand what is the meaning of Paticcasamuppada , at least not completely .
This is of course looking from Buddhism perspective .

There seems to be a lack of consensus on quite a number of the nidanas, and how they relate to each other.

[Spiny Norman]

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

I think that's the case for all of the nidanas.

[sentinel]

Namarupa actually refers to "the processes" , not as a "static" something .

I think that's the case for all of the nidanas.

Maybe the six senses is considered stable in comparison with other nidana .

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

[DooDoot]

Maybe the six senses is considered stable in comparison with other nidana.

According to SN 22.81, it appears the six senses are tainted by the various manifestations of ignorance therefore do not remain stable.

Avijjā­samphas­sa­jena, bhikkhave, vedayitena phuṭṭhassa assutavato puthujjanassa uppannā taṇhā

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.

When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises

SN 22.81

[Spiny Norman]

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

[sentinel]

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

[sentinel]

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

Well , I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness first before you can severe the attachment .

[Saengnapha]

Actually , namarupa is mentality materiality , but how to explain in the nidana between vinnana namarupa salayatana chain is the question that many stumped at it .

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

[sentinel]

Indeed. Is it more productive to focus on how feeling leads to craving and aversion, as per the Second Noble Truth?

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

[Saengnapha]

I would say ignorant leads to craving , therefore , you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment .

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

You said 'you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment'. So I said volitional activity (to eliminate/sever) is within the same sphere that is using perception. How can you 'see' anything but perceptions? That apparatus itself is conditioned to construct an image of what is being seen. I don't see any apparatus that can 'watch' this that is not part of this activity.

If it is as you say that non-seeing causes the split, it doesn't make sense. You are seeing that there is a split. What is 'non-seeing'? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you been able to rectify this split by any means, so far? I think not. Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

[sentinel]

Now you are back to volitional activity which is nothing but conditioned perceptions themselves. This can only lead back to a separation of subject and object and that is where it all started to begin with, no? The whole cycle re-boots itself.

The problem do not lies in this subject object , it's the non seeing that causes the splitting of the senseness and the others hence activities reinforce themselves further .

You said 'you have to eliminate the darkness before you can severe the attachment'. So I said volitional activity (to eliminate/sever) is within the same sphere that is using perception. How can you 'see' anything but perceptions? That apparatus itself is conditioned to construct an image of what is being seen. I don't see any apparatus that can 'watch' this that is not part of this activity.

If it is as you say that non-seeing causes the split, it doesn't make sense. You are seeing that there is a split. What is 'non-seeing'? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you been able to rectify this split by any means, so far? I think not. Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

You are not required to rectify it because that it is something false , seeing itself is rectification . Seeing itself is elimination . It is two fold , first there is a will , once the motor is on you are on autopilot . You don't need other tool . The process of un-conditioning may take you quite some time .
Or you can call it non doing .

[Spiny Norman]

Why? Because there is nothing within our toolbox that can rectify this. To me, this is the beginning of disenchantment, dispassion, and the letting go of volitional activity like 'will', trying to understand, and seeking in general.

I find this a puzzling comment, since the suttas clearly provide a "toolbox", including satipatthana and vipassana, developing insight into the 3 marks, etc. And in the suttas it is insight which leads to dispassion and letting go.

I agree that we cannot think ourselves out of ignorance, but that is a separate matter.