Consciousness as nama ?

[SteRo]

No , you missed the point , not someone says , the sa298 Parralel of sn12.2 he pointed out .

Probably most people only believes what they want to believe such as limited to sn12.2 .

It's not about belief. It is about following a teaching. if you prefer to follow different teachings then you will have such issues as you are demonstrating. it is totally up to you. Your issues aren't the issues of those who only follow one teaching.

Nope , it is the same teaching . You appear to be ignorant like many about agama and its historical facts , so , nevermind just leave it aside .

Well obviously it is not the same teachings because otherwise you would not have asked for help because of being confused.

[sentinel]

Well obviously it is not the same teachings because otherwise you would not have asked for help because of being confused.

You are qualified to comment on the agama only if you have read the sutta yourself .
If you are always that Right , why DD constantly pointed out your peculiar line of thinking .
As i said , please take a look at suttacentral as they categorized agama parallel to pali texts as the early texts . Not that i simply make something out of thin air .
My question arises even when 2 Pali texts provide different scenarios .
And i can see you and DD appear to be arguing endlessly for nothing's worth .
Shall we stop here .

[SteRo]

Well obviously it is not the same teachings because otherwise you would not have asked for help because of being confused.

...
As i said , please take a look at suttacentral as they categorized agama parallel to pali texts as the early texts . Not that i simply make something out of thin air .
...

Sorry but why should I follow your advice when you are confused due to following different teachings and I am not confused?

[sentinel]

Confident does not mean you are right .
Confusion in certain phrase is a temporary situation .
The path is a gradual trainings , otherwise you would be arahant by now .

[SteRo]

Confident does not mean you are right .

There is no "being right". "I am right" would be an expression of conceit. The Kalama sutta says "if you know for yourself" ... it does not say "if you are right".

[Pulsar]

Sentinel wrote

"Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?"

Is it not pure common sense, that Buddha would categorize consciousness under Nama? what other choice did he have? It is this 'mentality and materiality' in other words, mind and body, the functional unit is the embodiment.
Tale of the two reeds relying on each other ...
Even a child might place any of the mental aggregates under Nama.
I don't intend to engage in a dispute over this, my two cents, rupa is the solidity made up of 4 mahabhutas that
supports awareness.
any mentality belongs in that awareness...
with love

[sentinel]

...

Well , i am not interested in your argument such as with DD . The way you are expressing is full of hostility . So good bye .

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings sentinel,

Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?

Consciousness and nama-rupa are two different things. Consciousness cognises feeling, which is the first stage of sense perception in nama-rupa. Consciousness reflects. Nama-rupa is a reflection on consciousness. It’s a deception.

The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near shore & far —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Metta

[sentinel]

Greetings sentinel,

Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?

Consciousness and nama-rupa are two different things. Consciousness cognises feeling, which is the first stage of sense perception in nama-rupa. Consciousness reflects. Nama-rupa is a reflection on consciousness. It’s a deception.

The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near shore & far —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Metta

Greetings Ceisiwr, thanks. I wonder if the consciousness cognises something , does that cognizant feature is a quality of mentality ?

[Ceisiwr]

Geeetings sentinel,

I did read , but i just read that someone saids according to sa 298 , the nama includes feeling perception intention consciousness , so , now we have two version .


https://suttacentral.net/sa298/lzh/taisho

云何名？謂四無色陰——
受陰、想陰、行陰、識陰。
And what is nama ? Namely four non rupa khandas ~~ feeling khanda perception khanda intention khanda consciousness khanda .

Yes, some Agamas class consciousness as being part of nama-rupa. Personally I think two things when approaching this. First, I remember that the list we have for dependent origination, aggregates, elements and so on aren’t ultimate categories. They are ideas, formations that signpost us to Nibbana. They are for contemplation, not for clinging to. If we take dependent origination there is a lot of overlap between the links, where they kind of blur into each other (for example, craving and clinging). With this in mind I can understand why sometimes consciousness is classed under nama-rupa, as they two are heavily mixed up together and bleed into each other (for the worldling anyway). I also think “does it make sense to separate consciousness”? I certainly find it more helpful, since consciousness is simply awareness in the Dhamma. If consciousness is awareness then it makes sense for it to be aware of the categories in nama-rupa, to me anyway, thus it makes sense to separate them. Still, once again this is simply for ease of teaching.

Just my two cents on the issue.

Metta

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings sentinel,

Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?

Consciousness and nama-rupa are two different things. Consciousness cognises feeling, which is the first stage of sense perception in nama-rupa. Consciousness reflects. Nama-rupa is a reflection on consciousness. It’s a deception.

The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near shore & far —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Metta

Greetings Ceisiwr, thanks. I wonder if the consciousness cognises something , does that cognizant feature is a quality of mentality ?

As far as I understand it consciousness can only ever be aware of nama-rupa, starting with feeling, and cessation (Nibbana).

Metta

[santa100]

Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?

Obviously no one here was there with Him to provide firsthand account. All we have are recorded versions of His words. And if they're recorded versions, it'd be impossible to expect 100% one-to-one matching. Case in point is the Agamas' SA 298 ( where Nama = Feeling, Perception, VolitionalFormation, Consciousness ); versus the Nikayas' SN 12.2 ( where Nama = Feeling, Perception, Volition, Contact, Attention ). Anyway, no biggie for it's just different way of grouping things together, as per some comments from good teachers to hopefully making things a bit less confusing:

Though I render nama as name, this should not be taken too literally. Nama is the assemblage of mental factors involved in cognition: feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention (vedana, sañña, cetana, phassa, manasikara). These are probably called 'name' because they contribute to the conceptual designation of objects. It should be noted that in the Nikayas, namarupa does not include consciousness (viññana). Consciousness is the condition for namarupa, just as the latter is the condition for consciousness, so that the two are mutually dependent (see Text II,3(3)).

Nma,kya, the “mind-group” comprises the 4 formless groups of existence (arpino khandh): feeling (vedan), perception (saññ), formations (sakhra) and consciousness (viñña). It is distinguished from rpa,kya, the
body-group, comprising form (rpa), ie, the 4 elements (dhtu, mah,bhta) [see SD 17.1 & 2]. We have here the
first canonical occurrence of this term and also at Pm 1:183 (where it is def as “feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention and naming are the mental body, and also what are called mind-formations, vedanā saā cetanā
phasso manasikāro nāma ca, nāma,kāyo ca, ye ca vuccanti citta,sakhārā) but nma,kya is mentioned by itself at
Sn 1074. The twofold grouping (nma,kya and rpa,kya) is common in Comys. In Dhamma,sagī, all phenomena are classified as 3 groups: consciousness (citta) (khandha 5), mental factors (cetasika) (khandh 2-4) and
form (rpa = khandha 1).

[ToVincent]

Did the Buddha categorized consciousness as nama ? Or He didnt ?

First, the problem comes from the fact that viññana does not really mean "consciousness"; but instead "knowledge" and/or "understanding".

The second problem is that nāmarūpa has two definitions. One explicit in SN 12.2 - and one implicit in the following suttas, (and explicitly in SA 298):
This can be understood here: https://justpaste.it/img/5d3a1bf7ac6240 ... e2585d.png

The form element, householder, is the home of (the viññana nidana) consciousness; (idem for other khandhas).
Rūpadhātukho,gahapati, viññāṇassa oko.
SN 22.3


Consciousness (of the viññana nidana), bhikkhus, while standing, might stand engaged with [combined, connected with] form; based [supported] upon form, established upon (attached to, supported by, landing on,) form - with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion.
Upayo bhikkhave, avimutto, anupayo vimutto, rūpūpayaṃ vā bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṃ rūpappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷahiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya
(idem with each khandha).
SN 22.53 - (54 & 55)
Note: when the consciousness of the viññana nidana, lands on the consciousness in the nāmarūpa nidana (or another khandha), and come to growth, increase, and expand, there is a descent of nāma-rūpa.


When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form.
Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti hoti.
With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be
Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ
SN 12.39: (also 12.38)

Then, once the nāma-rūpa has gone through the saḷāyatana nidana, it takes the definition of SN 12.2 - (e.g. manaskāra (mano = internal ayatana of the saḷāyatana nidana)).
For the hundredth time, you just can't put manasikāra (manas=mano), which is an internal ayatana of the salayatana nidana, in the definition of the namarupa nidana - this is absolutely illogical.

Not to acknowledge this process is making the above suttas senseless.


I suppose that some people are desperate to make non-sectarian early Buddhism incomprehensible. Maybe to have you join their own sect or religion.
Maybe?
.
.

[SteRo]

...

Well , i am not interested in your argument such as with DD . The way you are expressing is full of hostility . So good bye .

There is no hostility in telling you that following different teachings leads to confusion.

[ToVincent]

...

Well , i am not interested in your argument such as with DD . The way you are expressing is full of hostility . So good bye .

There is no hostility in telling you that following different teachings leads to confusion.

Not when the teachings come from early Buddhist sects.
Didn't Buddha say "no schism"?

Confusion comes from sectarianism; an example of which is given in this previous post (in red).
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36776&p=553443#p553431


Now, western Buddhism that calls viññana "consciousness", and goes to equate it with our modern definition of consciousness - that is confusing.
People should read the following to have an idea of the historical lexicographical meaning of the word:
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad:
(2.1.16-17) (2.4.7) (2.4.12-13) (3.9.28-7) (4.3.7) (4.4.22) (3.7.22) (4.4.5)

Chāndogya Upaniṣad:
(7.7.2) (7.8.2) (7.17.1) (7.26.1)

Taittirīya Upaniṣad:
(1.7.2) (2.4.1) (2.5.1) (2.6.1) (3.5.1) (2.8.1) (3.10.5)

Aitareya Upaniṣad:
(3.1.2)

Kausìtaki Upaniṣad:
(3.3)

Etc.
.
.