If nama-rupa really means mind-and-body...

[tiltbillings]

And your point is?

It bears repeating, again:

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object....

Call: 1 Nanavira

This interpretation of phassa is not invited by the Mahānidānasuttanta (Dīgha ii,2 <D.ii,62>[9]), where nāmarūpapaccayā phasso is discussed without reference to salāyatana, and in terms of adhivacanasamphassa and patighasamphassa. These terms are more easily comprehensible when phassa is understood as 'contact between subject and object'. (It is an elementary mistake to equate patighasamphassa ['resistance-contact'] with five-base-contact [cakkhusamphassa &c.] and adhivacanasamphassa ['designation-contact'] with mind-contact [manosamphassa]. Adhivacana and patigha correspond to nāma and rūpa respectively, and it is clear from Majjhima iii,8 <M.i,190-1>[10] that both nāma and rūpa are conditions for each of the six kinds of contact.

- source

metta
Jack

[BlackBird]

You say: It bears repeating...
Your quote: X is X.

My quote: X is not always X, here is an example...
My point: To contradict what you quote.
Why? Because in my view it's wrong.

Pretty basic stuff Tilt, I've been watching you do the same thing I've just done for a good number of years now. So I'm a little perplexed by your comment.

metta
Jack

[tiltbillings]

You say: It bears repeating...
Your quote: X is categorically X.

My quote: X is not always X, here is an example...
My point: To contradict what you quote.
Why? Because in my view it's wrong.

Pretty basic stuff Tilt, you've been doing the exact same thing, for many a year now.

metta
Jack

You will need to spell this out. I have not a clue as to what you are talking about here. You are using Nanavira as a source, but, he is not a very convincing one, given that he really does not account for those things that run counter to his point of view. Also, it seems that you are completely missing the point of the quote I gave by focusing on a supposed contradiction to it.

[BlackBird]

You are using Nanavira as a source, but, he is not a very convincing one, given that he really does not account for those things that run counter to his point of view. Also, it seems that you are completely missing the point of the quote I gave by focusing on a supposed contradiction to it.

Hi Tilt, I'm running short on time, so I will respond to the following quickly:

You are using Nanavira as a source, but, he is not a very convincing one, given that he really does not account for those things that run counter to his point of view.

Like what? You wish to discredit the source, but you respond with nothing but your opinion. If you're going to refer me to Bodhi's piece then a response will have to wait 'till I am back in New Zealand, if you do, for now I can state that I don't think Ven. Bodhi's criticism is really valid and would counter refer you to Ven. Mettiko's (sp) article, of which I am sure you are aware.

Also, it seems that you are completely missing the point of the quote I gave by focusing on a supposed contradiction to it.

I didn't really pay to much attention to the point you were trying to make, for that I am guilty as charged. My post was rather tangentical: Should a man's ideas not be all of a piece? If they are not all of a piece then where lies their value?

metta
Jack

[tiltbillings]

What a waste of time this was. I don't give a rat's ass about Nanavira, nor do I give a rat's ass about Ven Bodhi's criticism of his work. You totally missed the point of the quote I gave, which was actually very simple. The Buddha is not making truth statements about some sort objective reality that is supposedly out there somewhere. He is addressing what we can know directly - the point of the pivotal All Sutta -, which is our experience, and nama-rupa - the focus of this thread - needs to be, in my opinion in light of any number of texts besides the All Sutta, understood in that context.

You are using Nanavira as a source, but, he is not a very convincing one, given that he really does not account for those things that run counter to his point of view. Also, it seems that you are completely missing the point of the quote I gave by focusing on a supposed contradiction to it.

Hi Tilt, I'm running short on time, so I will respond to the following quickly:

You are using Nanavira as a source, but, he is not a very convincing one, given that he really does not account for those things that run counter to his point of view.

Like what? You wish to discredit the source, but you respond with nothing but your opinion. If you're going to refer me to Bodhi's piece then a response will have to wait 'till I am back in New Zealand, if you do, for now I can state that I don't think Ven. Bodhi's criticism is really valid and would counter refer you to Ven. Mettiko's (sp) article, of which I am sure you are aware.

Also, it seems that you are completely missing the point of the quote I gave by focusing on a supposed contradiction to it.

I didn't really pay to much attention to the point you were trying to make, for that I am guilty as charged. My post was rather tangentical: Should a man's ideas not be all of a piece? If they are not all of a piece then where lies their value?

metta
Jack

[Rui Sousa]

... then why isn't it called mano-kaya or kaya-mano?



Should there be an 'and' in there, or is an 'and' implied? Or could it be that one term is actually being defined in relation to the other?

Metta,
Retro.

This existence has two components, there are names and there are forms, a person is a mixture of both. What we call I, you and they is a bundle of concepts and matter.

I believe rupa is more accurate than kaya because some Deva have a very subtle rupa, that might not fit into the notion of Kaya, and so rupa was more generic and inclusive. And nama seems to me more accurate than mano, for the same reason. Either of them are just conventional words to describe our existence in common language, probably more to those with less understandig of the Dhamma.

While accepting that there is no self in that nama-rupa, the person's existence is still real, so what can it be called in common language, in a way that does not mislead those who listen? There is no self, but there is an existence that was called nama-rupa by the Buddha. If he decided to call it that, and not any of the others, I sense he had a good reason to do so, avoiding confusion with other concepts.

In my understanding the extreme cases of the gods without rupa, or the case of the gods only with rupa, is left out for simplification of speech.

[WornLight]

.edit.

[dhamma_spoon]

Do you not find the exclusion of consciousness from the definition of nama in MN 9 contradicting with the other sources that include consciousness within the name-group?
Don't you find the definition of sankhara confusing and inconsistent when you compare the suttas to the Abhidhamma literature?

If you answer "No" to both questions, then you are among the minority of all the Buddhists I know.

Tep
-----

Hi Tep

The definition of Nama in MN 9 has also been troubling me. Not because vinnana is not included, but because phassa/contact is included. As you doubtless know, phassa is the meeting of the object with the sense base with the corresponding consciousness.

This makes the "vortex" or the reed sheaves description of Nama-Rupa with vinnana difficult to visualise, if vinnana already has one foot in Nama via contact.

With metta

Dear Sylvester, -

My apologies to you for the accidental failure to see your post, mainly because it was burried underneath the thick layer of fast-flowing messages!
Now that I discovered it, I am glad.
Yes, I am familiar with the term phassa ("contact") and the two-way dependent origination between nama-rupa and vinnana [Nalakalapiyo Sutta].
["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. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media."]

Since vinnana (consciousness) is not included in 'nama' as the Arahant Sariputta explained in MN 9 ["Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name."], it follows that the vinnana in a contact is different than the one that gives support to the whole nama-rupa in the first place. In other words, a vinnana can condition another vinnana to arise in order that a contact could happen.

Tep
-----

[Sylvester]

Dear Sylvester, -

My apologies to you for the accidental failure to see your post, mainly because it was burried underneath the thick layer of fast-flowing messages!
Now that I discovered it, I am glad.
Yes, I am familiar with the term phassa ("contact") and the two-way dependent origination between nama-rupa and vinnana [Nalakalapiyo Sutta].
["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. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media."]

Since vinnana (consciousness) is not included in 'nama' as the Arahant Sariputta explained in MN 9 ["Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name."], it follows that the vinnana in a contact is different than the one that gives support to the whole nama-rupa in the first place. In other words, a vinnana can condition another vinnana to arise in order that a contact could happen.

Tep
-----

Dear Tep

Gulp! I have to confess that I have difficulty coping with the idea that the support for Nama-Rupa might be a vinnana without contact. It would look like some disembodied consciousness lurking around and waiting for the "corresponding engagement" (tajjo samannāhāro) to drag it into contact, but I get the feel from MN 28 that tajjo samannāhāro is a paccaya for vinnana to arise. Hope I've not mis-understood you.

The fault is all mine - my thinking and conceptualisation is very linear in sequence.

With metta

[dhamma_spoon]

Hi, Sylvester -

Thank you for the reply.
I would like to say at this point of our discussion that I am just a Dhamma spoon, who doesn't know the taste of the Dhamma (similar to a soup spoon that just hangs in the soup pot, knowing nothing). So, please feel free to disagree and tell me so anytime.

You wrote, "Gulp! I have to confess that I have difficulty coping with the idea that the support for Nama-Rupa might be a vinnana without contact. It would look like some disembodied consciousness lurking around and waiting for the "corresponding engagement" (tajjo samannāhāro) to drag it into contact, but I get the feel from MN 28 that tajjo samannāhāro is a paccaya for vinnana to arise. Hope I've not mis-understood you."

I am not sure how you visualize as the two-way relationship between vinnana and nama-rupa [Nalakalapiyo Sutta], keeping in mind that contact in nama-rupa cannot arise without a vinnana. I can draw a flow diagram for describing the process as I see it as follows:

Sense object + sense base + vinnana[say, at the eye] ---> Contact
Contact ---> mano-vinnana [mind-consciousness]
Mano-vinnana ---> contact [say, at the eye for seeing a visible object]

Thanks.


Tep
-----