Dear Alex
Alex123 wrote:Dear Sylvester,
There are MANY suttas that define rūpa as being "four great elements and form derived from them". There are also plenty of suttas which place rūpa alongside 4 other sense objects and purely mental phenomenon. There are suttas that explicitly state that rūpa is an object of the eye. I've provided few of these suttas. I can provide with more if you want. The sheer number of such suttas give a weight to this most likely proposition.
Verily, verily, verily so! And I would point out that all of these sutta definitions were given in relation to the rupakhandha.
Now, the issue is simply this - is "rupa" in the rupakhanda (form aggregate) the same as the cakkhuvinneya rupa (eye-cognisable form) as you assert, or do the 2 "rupa" mean different things? For one, are you aware of any sutta definition of cakkhuvinneya rupa, that coincides with the rupakhandha definition?
Secondly, the standard rupakhanda definition is occassionally supplemented with another pericope -
Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.
Given the many qualities that can predicate rupakhandha, what is your basis for asserting that cakkhuvinneya rupa will fulfill all of these predicates?
Thirdly, your equating rupakhandha's "rupa" with cakkhuvinneya rupa violates Dependant Origination on 2 scores. Consider this nidana -
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
Clearly, the "rupa" in Namarupa is rupakhandha (per MN 9). The six sense media (salayatana) are simply the eyes, ears, tongue, nose, body and mind.
If you insist that the "rupa" in rupakhandha means cakkhuvinneya rupa, it would mean that the salayatana cannot come "to be" without cakkhuvinneya rupa. Your thesis would entail that the sense organs can only come into existence if there is eye-cognisable data. This sort of "Idealism" completely abrogates what MN 28 says about external rupa and the eyes -
Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
Whether or not cakkhuvinneya rupa is present, the eye can "be". However, your insistence that the rupakhandha's "rupa" must mean eye-cognisable form will lead to a form of Idealism that contradicts MN 28.
A little further, MN 28 explicates what happens when there is phassa, ie the conjunction of eye, external form and eye-consciousness -
But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being is gathered under the feeling clinging-aggregate. The perception of what has thus come into being is gathered under the perception clinging-aggregate. The fabrications of what has thus come into being are gathered under the fabrication clinging-aggregate. The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates.
(repeated verbatim for each of the other 5 indriyas, ayatanas and vinnanas)
This makes clear that something apart of cakkhuvinneya rupa is constituting our rupakhandha; the "rupa" of rupakhanda is that "something" that arises as an experience, but is definitely not the eye-cognisable form itself. "Rupa" as rupakhandha is "what has thus come into being" (Yaṃ tathābhūtassa rūpaṃ taṃ rūpupādānakkhandhe saṅgahaṃ gacchati), not the visual data.
If you look at the last peyyala in the series, where phassa is described in terms of the conjunction of dhamma, mind and mind-consciousness -
But when internally the intellect is intact and externally ideas come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being is gathered under the feeling clinging-aggregate. The perception of what has thus come into being is gathered under the perception clinging-aggregate. The fabrications of what has thus come into being are gathered under the fabrication clinging-aggregate. The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates.
As you can see, even contact that is purely mental will generate rupakhandha.
Your definition of the rupakhandha's "rupa" also distorts the traditional interpretation of the preceding nidana of consciousness being the condition of Namarupa. It would mean that eye-cognisable data do not arise until consciousness has arisen.
What is "formly perception" ? Eye sees form, or at least it is a visual perception. Form or color is a visual data.
"perception of form" or "form-ly perception" seem to mean the same thing. Form is perceived. BTW, formly is not even a proper word. Please don't invent new English words to twist the meaning of Buddha's words.
I think the neo-logism is justified as an abbreviation for "perception with reference to form". Given what MN 28 allows in terms of the form aggregate and purely mental phassa, there is every reason to take rupasanna to simply mean "perception with reference to form-world/form-jhana). This ties in neatly with the foil presented by MN 102's arupasanna.
MN102 talks about conception of Self after death. If one is reborn in rūpa loka, then one has rūpa perception (unless one is in asaññi state). If one is reborn in arūpa plane, then one has only arūpa perception (or base of neither perception nor non-perception). How difficult is this to understand?
Very easy to understand, if you note that MN 102 is using "rupim" and "arupim" as adjectives of the types of sanna in the respective worlds.