Just a little something for the Gombrich fans on "Namarupa".
His student, Sue Hamilton, seems to be another proponent for the argument that the Buddha's usage of "Namarupa" ought to be understood in the context of the contemporary usage of that time. I've not found her "Identity and Experience" where she argues for this in detail, but a summary of her thesis is found from p.150 onwards here -http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=pE9 ... &q&f=false
In her view, the Vedic conception of "Namarupa" is that Nama constitutes that which is "named/conceptualised/conceived", while Rupa is that which is "apperceived", phenomena which differentiate and distinguish one subject from the next. Note, that her thesis differs from Jurewicz who seems to argue that Namarupa represent "naming" and "giving form".
There's a delicious hint that Hamilton discusses the wretched vinnana anidassana riddle, but lots of it are excluded from the Google Book preview. But, better yet, she develops a really good reading for DN 15's adhivacanasamphassa and patighasamphassa and ties that to her conception of Namarupa (or she could have been totally influenced by Ven Nanavira's interpretation of the same...)
Still, there is something quite useful in Hamilton's thesis which she may not herself have noticed. If Namarupa is how a "subject" is delineated by others, and such delineation of a person vide its khandhas is possible only because of that "person's" clinging, perhaps it will not be impossible to dovetail the Vedic idea of Namarupa with the unique Buddhist spin of Namarupa being the khandhas, plus some.