Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:40 am

Hi,
I currently read the book "Wisdom develops Samadhi" by Ācariya Mahā Boowa Ñāṇasampanno.
At about the last third of the book I came across the following passage:
Wisdom Develops Samadhi wrote:Nāma dhammas include vedanā, saññā, sankhāra, and viññāna, these
four being the second group of the five khandhas, (...)

He calls the body the "Rūpa Dhamma" and vedanā, saññā, sankhāra, and viññāna the "Nāma dhammā".
As far as I know, the five (upādāna)kkhandhā are these:
rūpa-kkhandha
vedanā-kkhandha
saññā-kkhandha
sankhāra-kkhandha
viññāna-kkhandha
I understand why he includes the body to the rūpa-kkhandha and it's okay to call it "Rūpa Dhamma" but it is not only the body which belongs to the rūpa-kkhandha.

And I don't understand why he includes the other four kkhandā into what he calls the "Nāma dhammā"?
In MN9 it says:
MN9 wrote:Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro – idaṃ vuccatāvuso, nāmaṃ.
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention - these are called nāma.

It doesn't say "vedanā, saññā, sankhāra, and viññāna - these are called nāma" it says "vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro - these are called nāma"
I couldn't find any sutta where the four kkhandhā (vedanā, saññā, sankhāra, viññāna) together are called nāma.

I guess it could have something to do with the confusing translations of "nāma" (e.g "mentality", "spiritual", "mental"), imho "nāma" does just mean "name". I assume the term "Nāma dhammā" meaning those four kkhandhā does only exist within the commentaries, but since I'm not familiar with the commentaries maybe there's somebody who's able to clarify this.

Another thing is that I'm of the opinion that nāma entails viññāna but does not include it. Note Ven. Ñanavira Note's on nāma. So to call those four kkhandā "Nāma Dhammā" is very confusing perhaps even wrong.

What do you think?
best wishes, acinteyyo

p.s. I'm sorry if this topic doesn't really suit the pali-forum, moderators feel free to replace it then. ;)
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:50 am

I hav't read the book, but his talks are transcriptions of talks [edit Books] so maybe there was an error, in the process of transcribing to translating?

without reading the specific section I wouldn't like to guess, I do have this on my computer I think (if it is on Access to insight) so if you can pin point the section closer I will have a look and get back.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby appicchato » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:18 am

It's not at ATI but can be downloaded at:

http://www.forestdhammabooks.com/.../4/ ... amadhi.pdf
User avatar
appicchato
 
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
Location: Bridge on the River Kwae

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:37 pm

Hi Manapa,
this book is not a transcription from a talk. It's one of the few written by himself and then translated by Venerable Ācariya Paññāvaḍḍho.
The quoted passage above is on page 24.
It is said in the translator's introduction that many words have been left in Pali.
In the glossary it is said:
Nāma: Name. The four mental factors of the five khandhas.

I couldn't find a reference for nāma being the four mental factors of the five khandhas in the suttas.
btw I already made a link to the pdf, you've got to click on "Wisdom develops Samadhi" in the OP.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:49 pm

Chears Bhante, & Mitta
I'll have a read, I did notice on or two small points in Things as they are which don't correspond directly the the sutta, but it isn't so much he is contradicting but looking at it from his own perspective, same thing different angle.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:50 pm

I think it is one of those occasions where the teacher appears to contradict but really isn't.

I have a sense that Luang-ta is being quite specific by using Dhamma instead of Khandha, possibly more expansive in meaning? I do see some dictionaries giving Dhamma the meaning 'norm' and then there is the famous "Mental Quality" rendering, so maybe at a guess he could be refering to the normal naming quality????? (warning probably a bunch of c.......p) only mentioning that as those two translations did jump into my mind when I was reading the dhamma and the page. I will have a proper read of the book from the start to just after that page and hopefully I will be able to help properly?!?!

I am out tonight and tomorrow morning, so tomorrow afternoon
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:47 pm

HI acinteyyo ,

I wouldn't spend a huge amount of time puzzling over it. In some of the work of Ācariya Mahā Boowa that I have read he specifically state that he takes his understanding from the Forest Tradition, that others may disagree with his terminology, and interpretation, and that he apologises if he got anything wrong. The passage I recall was to to with citta (where he and others in the Ajahn Mun line have been accused of eternalism) but perhaps the same principle applies to what you are reading.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 9610
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby rowyourboat » Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:45 pm

whatever that does not fall under Rupa (material), is nama (mental phenomena) (not strictly true- because of vinnana, but good enough in this case).

In that sense the other 4 aggregates are clearly mental phenomena. I guess the 4 aggregates are not an exhaustive list of mental phenomena unlike in the definition of Nama dhammas.

The 5 aggregates are simply phenomena that beings generally mistake to be the self.
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:30 am

rowyourboat wrote:whatever that does not fall under Rupa (material), is nama (mental phenomena) (not strictly true- because of vinnana, but good enough in this case).
In that sense the other 4 aggregates are clearly mental phenomena. I guess the 4 aggregates are not an exhaustive list of mental phenomena unlike in the definition of Nama dhammas.

Do you have any reference for that from the nikayas? Is there any passage to be found where "mental phenomena" are called "nāma"? All I found is:
MN9 wrote:Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro – idaṃ vuccatāvuso, nāmaṃ.
Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention - these are called nāma.

I think good enough, although not strictly true might be the first step to misconceptions.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:20 pm

Hi Acinteyyo, (mikenz66)

Luang ta actually mentions earlier in the book "forest wisdom" (footnote 8, p16) meaning experience of the meditating monks, although not around this area, or chapter.

I am going to stick with my earlier thoughts, probably excluding what I had a sense of him meaning with Dhamma. It still strikes me as the use of dhamma here is significant in understanding his meaning.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:47 pm

Manapa wrote:Hi Acinteyyo, (mikenz66)

Luang ta actually mentions earlier in the book "forest wisdom" (footnote 8, p16) meaning experience of the meditating monks, although not around this area, or chapter.

I am going to stick with my earlier thoughts, probably excluding what I had a sense of him meaning with Dhamma. It still strikes me as the use of dhamma here is significant in understanding his meaning.

Hi Manapa,
I don't see your point. My problem is not the use of dhamma it's the use of nāma. I think it's clear that what he means with "Nāma dhammā" is "mental things", here more precisely the four khandhā. It's the use of nāma meaning the four khandhā what is confusing me.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:13 pm

acinteyyo wrote:
Manapa wrote:Hi Acinteyyo, (mikenz66)

Luang ta actually mentions earlier in the book "forest wisdom" (footnote 8, p16) meaning experience of the meditating monks, although not around this area, or chapter.

I am going to stick with my earlier thoughts, probably excluding what I had a sense of him meaning with Dhamma. It still strikes me as the use of dhamma here is significant in understanding his meaning.

Hi Manapa,
I don't see your point. My problem is not the use of dhamma it's the use of nāma. I think it's clear that what he means with "Nāma dhammā" is "mental things", here more precisely the four khandhā. It's the use of nāma meaning the four khandhā what is confusing me.

best wishes, acinteyyo

in writing my response here I clicked what you were confused by. not that saying it was any clue :cookoo:

It seamed to me he was referring to something like noting, the mental awareness and subsequent naming of anything that would fall within vedanā, saññā, sankhāra, and viññāna khandhas. not specifically noting itself but something similar.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5656
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Nāma being four kkhandhā?

Postby rowyourboat » Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:08 pm

Hi Acinteyyo

The definition of 'nama' comes from the sutta quote you posted. It clearly lists mental elements of experience. You may wish to look up the meanings of each if you like. There has never been any controversy regarding this. The only 'controversy' or should I say misclassification is with vinnana. The commentaries classify it under nama while the suttas don't.

I like the get down to the actual experience:

flower(rupa)+eye(rupa) --> eye consciousness-->eye-contact (nama), feelings (nama), perceptions (nama), fabrications (nama)

The delineate nama and rupa (ie to come to the insight of nama-rupa paricceda nana) it is important to see this process happening.

with metta
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK


Return to Pali

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests