Spiny Norman wrote:As a general observation I still struggle to see how such passages can be interpreted in a purely psychological way.
‘‘‘Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇa’nti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tadānanda, imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathā nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ. Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, nāmarūpe patiṭṭhaṃ na labhissatha, api nu kho āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ dukkhasamudayasambhavo [jātijarāmaraṇadukkhasamudayasambhavo (sī. syā. pī.)] paññāyethā’’ti? ‘‘No hetaṃ, bhante’’. ‘‘Tasmātihānanda, eseva hetu etaṃ nidānaṃ esa samudayo esa paccayo viññāṇassa yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ. Ettāvatā kho, ānanda, jāyetha vā jīyetha [jiyyetha (ka.)] vā mīyetha [miyyetha (ka.)] vā cavetha vā upapajjetha vā. Ettāvatā adhivacanapatho, ettāvatā niruttipatho, ettāvatā paññattipatho, ettāvatā paññāvacaraṃ, ettāvatā vaṭṭaṃ vattati itthattaṃ paññāpanāya yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ saha viññāṇena aññamaññapaccayatā pavattati.
“It was said: ’With consciousness as condition there is name & form.’
“It was said: ’With name & form as condition there is consciousness.’ How that is so, Ananda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to gain a footing in name & form, would an origination of the mass of suffering—of future birth, aging, and death—be discerned?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, Ananda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for consciousness, namely, name & form.
“It is to this extent, Ananda, that (1) one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise, to this extent that (2) there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description, (3) to this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is name & form together with consciousness.
"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 form are together called name-and-form."
Namarupa (from the introduction):
BB: In the MN translation I had changed Ven Nanamoli's "name-and-form" back to his earlier rendering, "mentality-materiality". In some respects the latter is doctrinally more accurate, but it is also unwieldy, particularly when translating verse, and thus here I return to "name-and-form". The compound was of pre-Buddhist origins and is used in the Upanishads to denote the differentiated manifestation of brahman, the nondual reality. For the sages of the Upanishads, namarupa is the manifestation of brahman as multiplicity, apprehended by the senses as diversified appearances or forms, and by thought as diversified names or concepts (the assignment of names and concepts being understood as grounded in objective reality rather than as the end-product of a purely subjective process). The Buddha adopted this expression and invested it with a meaning consonant with his own system. Here it becomes the physical and cognitive sides of individual existence. In the exression bahiddha namarupa, "external name-and-form" in
SN 12.19 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When a fool is obstructed by ignorance and conjoined with craving, this body thus results. Now there is both this body and external name-&-form. Here, in dependence on this duality, there is contact at the six senses. Touched by these, or one or another of them, the fool is sensitive to pleasure & pain.
we seem to find a vestige of the original meaning --- the world as distinguished according to its appearances and names --- but divested of the monistic implications.
"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.
Users browsing this forum: samseva and 5 guests