Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

[AlexBrains92]

If there were no consciousness then it would be nirodha-samāpatti. Consciousness is still active in the immaterial realms.

Sorry, no consciousness mentioned. Of course there is, because there is namarupa.
Instead of keeping repeating that no rupa = no namarupa, please, answer my question:
how can there be consciousness without namarupa? For the suttas it's a requirement.

You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the suttas rather than second hand sources.

There is consciousness in the formless planes. Consciousness doesn't need FORM to sustain itself, consciousness only needs 3 things to sustain itself

1) Intention
2) Underlying Tendencies
3) Planning

“Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.38/en/bodhi

The plane of "neither perception nor non-perception" is a plane without intention, but beings are still reborn there because they have underlying tendencies

Take the case of the reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to both their own and others’ intentions. But sir, in the case of the reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective, what kind of gods does this refer to?”

“Sāriputta, it refers to the gods reborn in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”

https://suttacentral.net/an4.171/en/sujato

Even though they have no intention and planning, they're still reborn because of underlying tendencies.

You are not reading carefully my replies.

[coconut]

You are not reading carefully my replies.

I have.. Your question is

how can there be consciousness without namarupa? For the suttas it's a requirement.

And I answered you. Consciousness does not require rupa, only nama, the bare minimum consciousness requires is underlying tendencies.

[Ceisiwr]

If DN15 had said this:

"If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the form-group were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the name-group?"

"No Venerable Sir!

Then Alex would be right and we would have a massive problem in understanding the immaterial realms. Since it omits this, nama can be allowed to exist without rupa and so the immaterial realms cease to be a problem and become allowable.

[AlexBrains92]

If there is no consciousness in the immaterial realms then there is no difference between any of the arupa jhana and nirodha-samāpatti. Only nirodha-samāpatti is without consciousness. Your objections are little more than eel-wriggling. I just told you that consciousness is there because it has nama and concept as its object of cognition. The problem for you is in explaining the immaterial realms and in explaining the difference between them and nirodha-samāpatti.



This is sutta based.

No way. I've already corrected myself, I wasn't meaning that there's no consciousness in immaterial realm.
The problem for you is in explaining how there can be consciousness without namarupa, but just with nama.

Because as the sutta I quoted shows, and DN15 supports, nama does not require rupa and consciousness can exist with just nama and concept as object.

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.
Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

[Ceisiwr]

The problem with the immaterial realms is that those who have attained it have only dropped rupa, not mind. For there to be nibbana you have to drop not just rupa but mind also.

[Ceisiwr]

No way. I've already corrected myself, I wasn't meaning that there's no consciousness in immaterial realm.
The problem for you is in explaining how there can be consciousness without namarupa, but just with nama.

Because as the sutta I quoted shows, and DN15 supports, nama does not require rupa and consciousness can exist with just nama and concept as object.

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.
Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

When talking about the human plane and the like, yes. When we get to the immaterial realms there is no rupa. The Buddha was instructing human beings, so it made sense to talk in terms of namarupa since thats how it is in our realm.

Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

This makes absolutely no sense.

[coconut]

No way. I've already corrected myself, I wasn't meaning that there's no consciousness in immaterial realm.
The problem for you is in explaining how there can be consciousness without namarupa, but just with nama.

Because as the sutta I quoted shows, and DN15 supports, nama does not require rupa and consciousness can exist with just nama and concept as object.

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.

It's not true. The Buddha said that you can also have only 4 aggregates, as if you're reborn in the formless plane you only have 4 aggregates, even though in many suttas he says 5 aggregates is the problem.

The Buddha doesn't put just "Nama" in Dependent Origination because he can't teach to those in the formless plane, so his theory of Dependent Origination is only applicable to those who can hear it, those with the six sense organs, unlike his teachers Uddaka and Alara who now have no bodies and cannot hear the dhamma, thus there is no context or reason in which the Buddha would teach dependent origination without FORM in it.

Do you understand? The Buddha only teaches what is practical, not ideological.

[AlexBrains92]

Because as the sutta I quoted shows, and DN15 supports, nama does not require rupa and consciousness can exist with just nama and concept as object.

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.
Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

When talking about the human plane and the like, yes. When we get to the immaterial realms there is no rupa. The Buddha was instructing human beings, so it made sense to talk in terms of namarupa since thats how it is in our realm.

Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if by 'rupa' alone we mean something different from 'rupa' in 'namarupa'. Again, for Nanananda is form only in name.
What makes no sense is to believe that DO is valid only in our realm.

[coconut]

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.
Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

When talking about the human plane and the like, yes. When we get to the immaterial realms there is no rupa. The Buddha was instructing human beings, so it made sense to talk in terms of namarupa since thats how it is in our realm.

Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if by 'rupa' alone we mean something different from 'rupa' in 'namarupa'. Again, for Nanananda is form only in name.
What makes no sense is to believe that DO is valid only in our realm.

It is only valid in our realm, no one in the formless plane can hear Dependent Origination, why would he make a theory to help those who cannot hear it?

[Ceisiwr]

You say this because you believe that you can simply split nama from rupa, as if namarupa were "nama and/or rupa".
No, namarupa is namarupa. In DO you always have namarupa, not just nama or just rupa.
Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

When talking about the human plane and the like, yes. When we get to the immaterial realms there is no rupa. The Buddha was instructing human beings, so it made sense to talk in terms of namarupa since thats how it is in our realm.

Therefore the absence of rupa is in some way compatible with the presence of namarupa.

This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if by 'rupa' alone we mean something different from 'rupa' in 'namarupa'. Again, for Nanananda is form only in name.
What makes no sense is to believe that DO is valid only in our realm.

Nanananda is very clear that rupa = the 4 great elements, it just for him they are not concrete matter as such but more phenomena. As I said regardless of if they are actual matter or are simply qualities, within the immaterial realm, whatever they are, they are not present. Rupa in namarupa = the 4 great elements and the form derived from them. There is no other definition.

“They speak of this thing called the ‘dimension of infinite space’. What is the dimension of infinite space? It occurred to me: ‘It’s when a mendicant—going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity—aware that “space is infinite”, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. This is called the dimension of infinite space.’

There is no experience of rupa here at all, yet there is consciousness and awareness of the concept "space is infinite". There is consciousness, nama and concept without rupa which is entirely possible as per DN15.

[AlexBrains92]

When talking about the human plane and the like, yes. When we get to the immaterial realms there is no rupa. The Buddha was instructing human beings, so it made sense to talk in terms of namarupa since thats how it is in our realm.



This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes sense if by 'rupa' alone we mean something different from 'rupa' in 'namarupa'. Again, for Nanananda is form only in name.
What makes no sense is to believe that DO is valid only in our realm.

Nanananda is very clear that rupa = the 4 great elements, it just for him they are not concrete matter as such but more phenomena. As I said regardless of if they are actual matter or are simply qualities, within the immaterial realm, whatever they are, they are not present. Rupa in namarupa = the 4 great elements and the form derived from them. There is no other definition.

“They speak of this thing called the ‘dimension of infinite space’. What is the dimension of infinite space? It occurred to me: ‘It’s when a mendicant—going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity—aware that “space is infinite”, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. This is called the dimension of infinite space.’

There is no experience of rupa here at all, yet there is consciousness and awareness of the concept "space is infinite". There is consciousness, nama and concept without rupa which is entirely possible as per DN15.

There's a problem with formless spheres: the second is infinite consciousness, the third is infinite nothingness.
What happened to consciousness?
Right now we are discussing nothing but Brahminic meditation, probably not yet integrated in the Buddha's teaching before his death.

[Ceisiwr]

It makes sense if by 'rupa' alone we mean something different from 'rupa' in 'namarupa'. Again, for Nanananda is form only in name.
What makes no sense is to believe that DO is valid only in our realm.

Nanananda is very clear that rupa = the 4 great elements, it just for him they are not concrete matter as such but more phenomena. As I said regardless of if they are actual matter or are simply qualities, within the immaterial realm, whatever they are, they are not present. Rupa in namarupa = the 4 great elements and the form derived from them. There is no other definition.

“They speak of this thing called the ‘dimension of infinite space’. What is the dimension of infinite space? It occurred to me: ‘It’s when a mendicant—going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity—aware that “space is infinite”, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. This is called the dimension of infinite space.’

There is no experience of rupa here at all, yet there is consciousness and awareness of the concept "space is infinite". There is consciousness, nama and concept without rupa which is entirely possible as per DN15.

There's a problem with formless spheres: the second is infinite consciousness, the third is infinite nothingness.
What happened to consciousness?
Right now we are discussing nothing but Brahminic meditation, probably not yet integrated in the Buddha's teaching before his death.

There isn't a problem since as with space there is awareness of the concept. Is this where you do the usual thing that many sutta only folks do, simply dismiss texts you don't like as being "late additions" or "distortions"?

[AlexBrains92]

Nanananda is very clear that rupa = the 4 great elements, it just for him they are not concrete matter as such but more phenomena. As I said regardless of if they are actual matter or are simply qualities, within the immaterial realm, whatever they are, they are not present. Rupa in namarupa = the 4 great elements and the form derived from them. There is no other definition.



There is no experience of rupa here at all, yet there is consciousness and awareness of the concept "space is infinite". There is consciousness, nama and concept without rupa which is entirely possible as per DN15.

There's a problem with formless spheres: the second is infinite consciousness, the third is infinite nothingness.
What happened to consciousness?
Right now we are discussing nothing but Brahminic meditation, probably not yet integrated in the Buddha's teaching before his death.

There isn't a problem since as with space there is awareness of the concept. Is this where you do the usual thing that many sutta only folks do, simply dismiss texts you don't like as being "late additions" or "distortions"?

It's not about what I like or not, it's about what scholars effectively point out

[Coëmgenu]

The question you are asking vis-à-vis nāmarūpa in the arūpyadhātu, AlexBrains92, is solved by some non-Vaibhāṣika Sarvāstivādins with "avijñāptirūpa," the "unperceived form." Beings in the arūpyadhātu have bodies comprised of avijñāptirūpa in some of the later Abhidharma treatises of the (Mūla)Sarvāstivādins. In those same systems, beings in the antarabhāva have similar bodies.

Theravāda surely has some other answer for this, I presume that nāma alone can also serve the function of nāmarūpa?

[Ceisiwr]

There's a problem with formless spheres: the second is infinite consciousness, the third is infinite nothingness.
What happened to consciousness?
Right now we are discussing nothing but Brahminic meditation, probably not yet integrated in the Buddha's teaching before his death.

There isn't a problem since as with space there is awareness of the concept. Is this where you do the usual thing that many sutta only folks do, simply dismiss texts you don't like as being "late additions" or "distortions"?

It's not about what I like or not, it's about what scholars effectively point out

Sure