The rupa in nama-rupa

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby BubbaBuddhist » Wed May 05, 2010 5:22 pm

Okay, yes; dispassion from the inside out, so to speak. Through meditation on the dhathus, the elements, one develops insight into the insubstantial nature of rupa. That rupa isn't a "solid" as it appears, just a construction of components we mistake for a certain thing. Seeing this, it loses its glamour. We see its true, mundane nature not the idealistic and grandiose label we like to stick on it. It all falls apart. You can fall in love with a body; how can you fall in love with a collection of earth wind fire and liquid?

I begin to realize our error of perception is thinking rupa is somehow more "solid" than nama. Yow.

Internal nature= experiential, external nature = that which we're experiencing. Or so I think. Am I making sense or have I gotten lost in the woods of my own speculation? :tongue:

J
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
User avatar
BubbaBuddhist
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby m0rl0ck » Thu May 06, 2010 4:21 am

Bubbabuddhist wrote:
I begin to realize our error of perception is thinking rupa is somehow more "solid" than nama. Yow.



Wow. Great observation. Unless its conceptualized and named as a discrete entity, it isnt.
"When you meditate, don't send your mind outside. Don't fasten onto any knowledge at all. Whatever knowledge you've gained from books or teachers, don't bring it in to complicate things. Cut away all preoccupations, and then as you meditate let all your knowledge come from what's going on in the mind. When the mind is quiet, you'll know it for yourself. But you have to keep meditating a lot. When the time comes for things to develop, they'll develop on their own. Whatever you know, have it come from your own mind.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eleft.html
User avatar
m0rl0ck
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby Shonin » Thu May 06, 2010 6:10 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Shonin wrote:We don't find an objectively existing body outside of our sensory experiences of the body.

Geez, you sound like a Yogacharin or a Theravadin.


A Yogacharin would take the metaphysical/ontological position that no body exists outside of our sensing since all phenomena are ultimately mental. That would be speculation on how things are beyond our experience of them. That's not what I'm saying.
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 06, 2010 6:21 am

Shonin wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Shonin wrote:We don't find an objectively existing body outside of our sensory experiences of the body.

Geez, you sound like a Yogacharin or a Theravadin.


A Yogacharin would take the metaphysical/ontological position that no body exists outside of our sensing since all phenomena are ultimately mental. That would be speculation on how things are beyond our experience of them. That's not what I'm saying.

It depends upon whose notion of Yogachara you read. The last place one should go to for an understanding of Yogachara are the Tibetans via their "tenet system." This might give a better look at what it teaches, coming from one one of the best scholars on the subject: http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios ... 20crux.pdf
Everything we know, conceive, imagine, or are aware of, we know through cognition, including
the notion that entities might exist independent of our cognition. The mind doesn’t create the physical
world, but it produces the interpretative categories through which we know and classify the physical world,
and it does this so seamlessly that we mistake our interpretations for the world itself. Those interpretations,
which are projections of our desires and anxieties, become obstructions (åvara¿a) preventing us from seeing
what is actually the case. In simple terms we are blinded by our own self-interests, our own prejudices
(which means what is already prejudged), our desires. Unenlightened cognition is an appropriative act.
Yogåcåra does not speak about subjects and objects; instead it analyzes perception in terms of graspers
(gråhaka) and what is grasped (gråhya).
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 06, 2010 6:28 am

Greetings,

Cool - where do I sign up?

(that sounds entirely in accord with the Sutta Pitaka to me...)

:D

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 06, 2010 7:14 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Cool - where do I sign up?

(that sounds entirely in accord with the Sutta Pitaka to me...)
The only problem is that Yogachara is a very complex system. And, of course, it also not singular in its lines of thought throughout its history.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19901
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The rupa in nama-rupa

Postby Shonin » Thu May 06, 2010 7:40 am

tiltbillings wrote:It depends upon whose notion of Yogachara you read. The last place one should go to for an understanding of Yogachara are the Tibetans via their "tenet system." This might give a better look at what it teaches, coming from one one of the best scholars on the subject: http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios ... 20crux.pdf
Everything we know, conceive, imagine, or are aware of, we know through cognition, including
the notion that entities might exist independent of our cognition. The mind doesn’t create the physical
world, but it produces the interpretative categories through which we know and classify the physical world,
and it does this so seamlessly that we mistake our interpretations for the world itself. Those interpretations,
which are projections of our desires and anxieties, become obstructions (åvara¿a) preventing us from seeing
what is actually the case. In simple terms we are blinded by our own self-interests, our own prejudices
(which means what is already prejudged), our desires. Unenlightened cognition is an appropriative act.
Yogåcåra does not speak about subjects and objects; instead it analyzes perception in terms of graspers
(gråhaka) and what is grasped (gråhya).


That's interesting. I have no disagreement with that interpretation. Thanks.
Shonin
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Previous

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests