[ligaliaCods]

dear sutta forum

some suttas excerpts that mention nama-rupa are below

some translate nama-rupa as "name-form", which some also refer to as "subject-object". here, the mental act of naming sense objects is emphasised

others translate nama-rupa as "mentality-materially" or "mind-body". here, the psychophysiological organism is emphasised

what is our view?

what rationale and/or meditative experience lends us to regard "nama-rupa" in one manner or the other?

thanks



Monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for formations, formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering.

Upanisa Sutta 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.

Nalakalapiyo Sutta And what is nama-&-rupa?

Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention: This is called nama.

The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called rupa.

This nama & this rupa are called nama-&-rupa.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality.

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

Khajjaniya Sutta 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: 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. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

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 that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.

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 that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

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. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.

Maha-Rahulovada Sutta For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five aggregates of clinging head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

Maha-salayatanika Sutta

[d1Bc25UP]

Hi Element,

Can be the case of having both as a realization?

In a kind of mundane level -or previous attainment- can we work with what is the psychophysiological organism? and in a kind of supramundane -or further attainment- understanding is it about labeling "objects"?

For example, from the read of the Maha-Raulovada Sutta seems to suggest the approach of subject-object where the mental act is present at the moment of labeling "outside" and "inside" where outside and inside should be seen as just properties, while the Maha Salayatanika Sutta quote leads toward the psychophysiological organism where it is stressed the tranquility of body and thus the tranquility of mind having as a first step the awareness of bodily stress as the condition of mind stress.

Some tentative thoughts...

[medshop]

I think both "Name" and "Mentality" are the meaning of "Nama", and also "Form" and "Materialilty" are the meaning of "Rupa".

For the view of practitioner, should point Nama-Rupa to the "Five aggregates" for insight development like:-

-Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention: This is called nama.
-Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality.
-The five aggregates of clinging head toward future accumulation.

If we always feeling that we are the elements of 5 things, the "I"-"Me"-"Self" will be reduce a little bit, a little bit everyday until one day we will understand "What is Anatta ?" and can not find "I"-"Me"-"Self" anymore.

[boleroman]

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.

Nalakalapiyo Sutta

Hi Element,
Great topic and I had to mention the above quote. In it we see consciousness and name-&-form propping each other up. I would love to look at this proposition in more depth, as I've always understood dualistic name-&-form building to be a function of (to arise from) a volitional consciousness. I figure then that my comprehension of these Pali terms is at fault, as I can't square the 'mutuality' of both. For me, one must necessarily precede the other?

[Dyslermergerb]

Though my Buddhist knowledge’s rather rusty but I remember that there are some different translations of “Maha-satipatthana Sutta” which I believe is the keys to understand (if not misunderstanding) about nama-rupa.
The very words are “internally & externally.”

In case of the body, some translation tends to interpret it as “physical body.” But how about internally & externally feelings, mind and mental qualities?

"In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself…

"In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to feelings. Or his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on feelings in & of themselves…

"In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself.

"In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on mental qualities in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that 'There are mental qualities' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five hindrances.

[moohassinny]

According to the Monier-Williams Dictionary (2006), rūpa is defined as:
... any outward appearance or phenomenon or colour (often pl.) , form , shape , figure RV. &c &c ...
to assume a form ; often ifc. = " having the form or appearance or colour of " , " formed or composed of " , " consisting of " , " like to " ....[1]

? sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch [dependent on 5 senses]


Nama - Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention [dependent on the 6th sense]

[PPActionnGuys]

Hello,

I regard nama-rupa as name-and-matter, i.e. as matter and its "name" (appearance). As far as I can see it has nothing to do with the dualism of mind/body or subject/object.

It has been already pointed out that nama-rupa (together with vinnana) can be internal and/or external. Internal nama-rupa is this body, i.e. the six senses as they appear, and external nama-rupa is the corresponding environment (as it appears).

It is only under the influence of nescience that this dyad of internal/external is regarded as subject-experiencing-objects (e.g. "I see forms with my eyes"). This means that any understanding of sense-consciousness that is based on the assumption that "I am (as or via my senses) in contact with things" is erroneous.

Consciousness (vinnana) is said to depend on nama-rupa (and vice versa), which means that consciousness is always consciousness of something. This "something" is nama-rupa, i.e. apparent matter (internally and externally).

With this in mind it can be understood why it would be wrong to regard eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body- and mind-consciousness as an "output" or "emanation" of the senses "stimulated" by an environment. Because both the senses and the environment are nama-rupa, i.e. they are already apparent and therefore already conscious, since nama-rupa and vinnana arise and cease together.

So eye-consciousness is consciousness of an eye and the forms which arise in dependence of that eye; ear-consciousness is consciousness of an ear and the sounds that arise in dependence of that ear (and so on). Internal and external nama-rupa arise and cease together, but their relation (which is not a matter of time) is such that nama-rupa internally (the senses) gives rise to nama-rupa externally (environment), but both internal and external nama-rupa are that "something" which consciousness is "of".

This is my current understanding of the matter. I am fully aware that this topic is understood differently by others, but I just wanted to share my thoughts with you.

Thank you for your attention!

Best wishes,

Phygro

[oraltyrap]

thank you for sharing, Phygro

[lollypopz]

nama-rupa --> concept-percept?

[AromeWahmaron]

Nāma-rūpa is best understood in the context of its interplay as ‘recognition of form’ (rūpa as both embodiment and objects of sense). Ñāṇananda Bhikkhu has somewhere in his writings (Nibbāna sermons?) given a nice analogy of this as nāma-rūpa likened to a reflection or mirage cast over viññāṇa. This is helpful for the practitioner of Dhamma because it is precisely this dynamic of illusion intrinsic to mental impressions, mood and internal dialog at sensate events that one must experience with contemplative knowing for release of the cause of dukkha.

In Concept and Reality, Ñāṇananda mentions this:

“The interdependence between viññāṇa and nāmarūpa in the case of the worldling is such that the one turns back from the other (paccudāvattati) refusing to go further (nāparaṃ gacchati). This is the vortex proper of all saṃsāric currents (ettāvatā vaṭṭaṃ vaṭṭati) which sooner or later engulfed all pre-Buddhist attempts at crossing the fourfold flood. [n3. kāma (sense-desire), bhava (becoming), diṭṭhi (view), avijjā (ignorance).] Hence a permanent solution had to be effected at this very vortex, and an approach to the seething mass was rendered possible by the fact that all pathways of concepts and designations converged on it, providing sufficient scope for wisdom to work its way through (ettāvatā paññāvacaraṃ).” (Concepts, pp. 78-9) This ‘pathways of concepts and designations converged on it,…’ is the same dynamic we find in AN. 10.2.1.8/8.2.4.3 (Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’) where such ‘concepts and designations’ are the sabbe dhammā ‘all things’ which ‘converge at sensations’ (vedanā samosaraṇa), the basis of which are in nāma-rūpa and diversity are in the 18 dhātus of saḷāyatana (AN.9.1.2.4. – Samiddhi Sutta), and are led by the contemplative through the pathway of samādhi and sati to the utmost of wisdom and release into the deathless of nibbāna.

[8IhGpvH0]

Nāma-rūpa is best understood in the context of its interplay as ‘recognition of form’ (rūpa as both embodiment and objects of sense).

thanks AB

i was personally interested in reading some opinions on the subject




*******************

In Concept and Reality, Ñāṇananda mentions this:

This ‘pathways of concepts and designations converged on it,…’ is the same dynamic we find in AN. 10.2.1.8/8.2.4.3 (Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’) where such ‘concepts and designations’ are the sabbe dhammā ‘all things’ which ‘converge at sensations’ (vedanā samosaraṇa), the basis of which are in nāma-rūpa and diversity are in the 18 dhātus of saḷāyatana (AN.9.1.2.4. – Samiddhi Sutta), and are led by the contemplative through the pathway of samādhi and sati to the utmost of wisdom and release into the deathless of nibbāna.

as an aside, i struggle to follow Ñāṇananda here

for me, the word 'dhamma' here does not mean 'things' but 'practises', such as in the phrase:

O Bhikkhus. The footprints of all land-bound creatures fit within the footprint of the elephant; the elephant's footprint is said to be the supreme footprint in terms of size. Similarly all skilful dhammas have heedfulness as their base, converge within the bounds of heedfulness. Heedfulness may be said to be supreme amongst those dhammas.

S.V.43 thus, the saying "sabbe dhamma vedanā samosaraṇa" is "all skilful dhammas converge on feelings", as follows:

On knowing a phenomenon with the mind, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry
at it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an immeasurable mind and
he understands realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil
unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in
that feeling, welcome it or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in
him.

MN 38 When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans

MN 37 similarly, AN.9.1.2.4 Samiddhi Sutta substitutes "sabbe dhamma" with "saṅkappavitakkā", which is not "all things" but as Bodhi translates as "purposive thoughts" (similar to "skilful dhammas")

if saṅkappavitakkā was not skilful here, then they could not culminate in Liberation, the Deathless & Nibbana, as the sutta describes

when the Samiddhi Sutta states [per Bodhi]: "From what does their variety derive? the elements", this could be as follows:

Bhikkhus, in dependence on an element there arises a perception, there arises a view, there arises a thought.

SN 14.13 Bhikkhus, sensual thoughts arise with a source, not without a source; thought of ill will arises with a source, not without a source; thought of harming arises with a source, not without a source. And how is this so?

In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself wrongly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.

In dependence on the ill will element there arises perception of ill will...

In dependence on the cruelty element there arises perception of harming...

In dependence on the renunciation element there arises perception of renunciation...

In dependence on the non-ill will element there arises perception of non-ill will...

In dependence on the harmlessness element there arises perception of harmlessness. In dependence on the perception of harmlessness there arises intention of harmlessness; in dependence on intention of harmlessness there arises desire for harmlessness; in dependence on desire for harmlessness there arises passion for harmlessness; in dependence on passion for harmlessness there arises a sensual quest. Engaged in a quest for harmlessness, the instructed noble disciple conducts himself rightly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.

SN 14.12 regards

[Galinastva]

According to the Monier-Williams Dictionary (2006), rūpa is defined as:
... any outward appearance or phenomenon or colour (often pl.) , form , shape , figure RV. &c &c ...
to assume a form ; often ifc. = " having the form or appearance or colour of " , " formed or composed of " , " consisting of " , " like to " ....[1]

? sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch [dependent on 5 senses]




Nama - Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention [dependent on the 6th sense]

Matter is a good description for rupa and mind for nama. Rupa is always object whereas nama can be both subject and object. Nama can know nama as well as rupa. Thus it is mind that can know matter (earth, wind, fire and water elements). Mind can also know mind (feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness ie. eye, ear, nose, tongue, tactile and mind consciousness as objects).

This mind or consciousness as subject can only be known by its object nama-rupa. Both subject and object are dependently coarisen ie. seer-forms, hearer-sounds, thinker-thoughts. The reality is that there is only the process of seeing, hearing, thinking etc. "I am" seeing, hearing, thinking is an error. Similarly "things out there". Both "I" and "things" are empty of inherent existence.



"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."

"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."

"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.

"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....067.than.html

[Ztcgtqvb]

Originally Posted by Element: as an aside, i struggle to follow Ñāṇananda here

for me, the word 'dhamma' here does not mean 'things' but 'practises', such as in the phrase: Actually you are referring here to my comments on Ñāṇananda’s in Concepts which was cited in quotations, but no matter. Ñāṇananda does disagree with the commentators on the meaning of the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’, specifically with reference to ‘skilful dhammā’ where he mentions this as a misunderstanding of context with chanda. Sabbe dhammā as a range of potentiality at nāma-rūpa makes better sense.

My comment you quoted is really in disagreement with some of Ñāṇananda’s idea as I recall it. But what is helpful for me with his examination of the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’ (Mind-Stilled II ?) is the DO in brief at the convergence of vedanā. This gives us a generic template of mind-moment dynamics; however we may interpret the rest of the Jacobs Ladder.

[Ruidselisse]

Ñāṇananda does disagree with the commentators on the meaning of the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’, specifically with reference to ‘skilful dhammā’ where he mentions this as a misunderstanding of context with chanda.

thanks AB

until now, i was the only Dhammist i knew of that interpreted 'sabbe dhamma' as 'skilful dhammas' in the context of the Kiṃmūlaka

but your post prompted me to do some research and i found an essay by Piya Tan, which states:

Ñāṇananda adds that the early commentators have missed out on such deep dimensions and vital
developments, and have merely “narrowed down the meaning of the set of answers recommended by the
Buddha by limiting its application to wholesome mental states,” such as in Dīgha Porāṇa Ṭīkā (ancient
sub-commentary (2004:77). naturally, i prefer what the early commentators said, which the Samaddhi Sutta also supports

as for chanda is the first Iddhipada (SN 51.20) thus a factor of the path

with metta

[BluewayAllere]

Ñāṇananda does disagree with the commentators on the meaning of the Kiṃmūlaka Suttas’, specifically with reference to ‘skilful dhammā’ where he mentions this as a misunderstanding of context with chanda.

Ñāṇananda disagrees with the early commentators but agrees with the later (Mahavihara) commentators

It seems it is Ñāṇananda with a misunderstanding of context with chanda as chanda is one of the 37 Bodhipakkhiyadhammas.

Ñāṇananda's view has no basis in observable reality (vipassana) or in the suttanta. Ñāṇananda's view is not 'ancient Buddhism'

In Dhamma