[br`lorance]

A few of the a few ideas of Gombrich, the Professor trying to handle a hard subject: "The later Buddhist history didn't know how the Buddha had appropriated this phrase nama-rupa from the Upanishads. Understanding that at this time in the string there must be a reference to the introduction of the specific person with teh five khandha, nama-rupa equivalent was made by the tradition to the five khandha by stating that rupa was the first khandha and nama known the other four. This could hardly be correct.".", because three of those four (vedana, samkhara, and vinnana) look elsewhere in the string under their common titles. at an extremely early period the Buddhist custom lost sight of the doctrines and texts to that the Buddha was reacting. And, I would add, paradox doesn't weather well."My conclusion is that Frauwallner and Hwang are correct, and the Buddha's string initially returned only five links, to desire. (It may also return six, seven, or eight hyperlinks - nothing hangs on the difference.) Then, at another stage, the Buddha made an alternative causal chain to ironize and criticise Vedic cosmogony, and realized that it brought quite properly in to the sooner chain - possibly because it's normal for the development of the in-patient to lead directly on to the six senses, and these, via 'contact' and 'sensation', to desire. It's very possible, nevertheless, that some one failed to discover that when the first four links become area of the string, it's bad edition recommended that so as to abolish prejudice one first had to abolish consciousness!"Any suggestions?