Why Nama-Rupa classification defer in F.A and D.O

[SarathW]

Why Nama-Rupa classification defer in Five Aggregate and Dependent Originaton (D.O)?

Nama as per five aggregate are Feeling, Perception, Mental formation and consciousness
Nama as per D.O are Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention

What is the reason for the above difference?

[Sylvester]

Hi

Could you point to a sutta definition of nāma that identifies it with feeling, perception, formations and consciousness? This classification is more of an Abhidhammic one, which might perhaps be useful for an Abhidhammic-method analysis.

[SarathW]

Hi Sylvester
Thanks. Only thing I know is Budddha taught Five Aggregates. I am not sure who divide that as Nama Rupa.

[daverupa]

Taking the five aggregates as the template, nama could only be sankhara, vedana, sanna.

nama + rupa <--> vinnana.

So then, sankhara in this sense would need to be attention, intention, & contact.

Are these sankhara?

[SarathW]

Hi Deverupa
Please see attached for Abidhamma classification.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el322.html

[SDC]

Not exactly sure what you are asking.

Although nāma and rūpa appear together almost exclusively, when discussing the five khandhas only rūpa is used. Are you asking why nāma is not included?

[ground]

Why Nama-Rupa classification defer in Five Aggregate and Dependent Originaton (D.O)?

Nama as per five aggregate are Feeling, Perception, Mental formation and consciousness
Nama as per D.O are Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention

What is the reason for the above difference?

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I.e. the idea consciousness actually covers the ideas of feeling and perception. That shall now be expressed as consciousness*

That leads to your arrangement of words being modified like this

Nama as per five aggregate are Mental formation and consciousness*
Nama as per D.O are intention, contact, & attention, consciousness*

which may imply that "intention, contact, & attention" can be subsumed under "Mental formation"



Just words applied as per convention depending on contexts expressing ideas


in this context e.g. it is expressed the following

Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Now what is true and what is false?
Are perception and feeling mental fabrications or are they conjoined with consciousness or does the one imply the other? One may also express the idea that "consciousness is tied up with the mind" leading to "perception and feeling and consciousness are tied up with the mind" and within this context "perception and feeling are conjoined with consciousness".
But if all these are "tied up with the mind" then one may also say that "intention, contact, & attention" are tied up with the mind too and all boils down to mental fabrications. Why then make it so complicated if all there is may be subsumed under the term "mental fabrications"?
Just for the purpose of analysing different aspects of one and the same thing which actually is a non-thing because it cannot be found.

[SarathW]

Hi Ground
Thanks
It is a good analysis. There is only one consciousness. Nama Rupa are arising due to consciousness.
The consciousness arise due to Nama Rupa. They both are interdependent and no first course.
I think we should pay more attention to experience rather than the categories.