retrofuturist wrote:OK. Earlier (not long in time, but many posts ago) you agreed that vipaka functions only within loka/sabba, not outside of it. You agreed that the 5 aggregates of experience could be rolled up into 4, by subsuming rupa into the other four. You agree that nama fits within those 4 aggregates.
Yes I agreed that vipāka functions only within loka. However I do not agree that the 5 aggregates could be rolled up into 4 by subsuming rūpa into the other 4 nor do I agree that nāma fits within those 4 aggregates.
The 5 aggregates are form (rūpa), feelings (vedanā), fabrications (sankhārā), perception (saññā) and consciousness (viññāna).
Rūpa is the four mahābhūtā. Nāma is vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro. So in relation to the 5 aggregates rūpa is the aggregate of form and nāma is the aggregate of feelings, fabrications and perception. The aggregate of consciousness remains not included within nāma-rūpa.
retrofuturist wrote:Now, we mentioned some time ago that venerable Nyanatiloka said vipaka was always mental and you were quite displeased with this notion at the time and were unconvinced by it. In the Mahavihara tradition, "nama" (lit: name) is defined by him in his Buddhist Dictionary as 'mind', mentality. Now, whilst I'm not asking you to accept his definition, would you accept that vipaka only operates within nama, as defined in the suttas by "feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention"?
No. My understanding is that vipāka is an experience and an experience is nāma-rūpa + viññāna. Therefore vipāka operates within nāma-rūpa + viññāna not only within nāma.
retrofuturist wrote:Is there any aspect of resultant experience outside of bare consciousness itself that is outside of nama?
I don't understand your question. Any experience consists of nāma-rūpa + viññāna. Consciousness itself is outside of nāma.
retrofuturist wrote:To quote Venerable Nanananda from his 1st Nibbana Sermon, "the definition of nāma in nāma-rūpa takes us back to the most fundamental notion of `name', to something like its prototype. The world gives a name to an object for purposes of easy communication. When it gets the sanction of others, it becomes a convention."
Since the arahant, transcending such naming conventions that lead to reification (e.g. the goat, the muggers, the muggings, the kickings), understands the components of nama which give the false perception of a unitary 'mind', sees through the illusion of nama-rupa, sees its emptiness (sunnata), understands it as a false reflection, has brought about its cessation through the cessation of avijja.... in light of that, do you still think vipaka can still apply with reference to an arahant?
...sees that it's empty of self and anything pertaining to self, has brought about the cessation of nāma-rūpa conditioned by avijjā throught the cessation of avijjā. BUT hasn't brought about the cessation of nāma-rūpa conditioned by viññāna conditioned by nāma-rūpa. There is another DO sequence where avijjā is not the origin, see Nalakalapiyo Sutta SN12.67:
"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that — without self-making or other-making — it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?"
"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.
I still think vipāka being an experience operates within nāma-rūpa + viññāna and still applies as mere phenomenon with reference to an arahant until the cause for the existence of either nāma-rūpa or viññāna (which "stand leaning aginst one another") has finally ceased. Nevertheless there is no suffering for the arahant because in short all suffering is pañc'upādānakkhandhā, but in case of the arahant all there is, is just pañcakhandhā. There's just no foundation, no ground, no footing anymore for suffering to be experienced.
best wishes, acinteyyo