Question on DO

[Srilankaputra]

Biology/physics and the Dhamma; two different paradigms.

Ñāṇavatthu Sutta:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.33/en/bodhi

Dutiyañāṇavatthu Sutta:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.34/en/bodhi

[coconut]

5 senses come from having a body. No body, no senses. The sixth sense is the mind.

nama-rupa = mind and body

Mind and body or name and form or materality and mentality?

I was advised that name and form which means labelling is the best translation.

The problem isn't in the mind and body, but ignorance. If one takes that into consideration then the issue is not mind and body, but what binds the eye to the sights, the nose to the smells, etc.. i.e. the glue, the attachment, the clinging rooted in craving and ignorance..

Hence the Buddha uses the metaphor of removing the skin from the cow by cutting the ligaments, and then putting the skin back on it.

Also, I'd advise against getting into metaphysical and philosophical of what is nama or what is rupa, these are fruitless and don't lead anywhere and isn't what the Budda taught. The Buddha's teaching is simple but subtle, not complex metaphysical mental masturbation.

[Sam Vara]

Also, I'd advise against getting into metaphysical and philosophical of what is nama or what is rupa, these are fruitless and don't lead anywhere and isn't what the Budda taught. The Buddha's teaching is simple but subtle, not complex metaphysical mental masturbation.

What is the "metaphysical and philosophical" here, as opposed to working definitions of the terms which enable us to understand what the Buddha meant?

[DooDoot]

doesn’t mean “mind and matter”

It means mind & matter, as literally defined in SN 12.2 and MN 9.

To answer your question, namarupa is designating and making concepts (nama) in relation to rupa (appearance) which then gives a visual domain or home (ayatana) for said being in line with their cravings. The same for the other senses.

Lol -making concepts about forms prior to sense contact. Sounds very illogical.

[DooDoot]

How does name and form condition six sense bases? 6 sense bases are biological structures.

It means mind and body or materality and mentality.

Nama is defined as feeling, perception, intention, [internal] contact & attention.

Rupa is defined as the form built from the elements of earth, wind, fire & water.

The fruition of nama is inappropriate attention to a sankhara (2nd link)

When nama gives inappropriate attention to a sankhara, nama then causes the sense bases to seek the object of that sankhara.

For example:

1. Sankhara thinks: "I feel like eating some chocolate ice-cream". This sankhara is conditioned by ignorance (the product of past becoming).

2. Then simultaneously the rupa becomes aroused by the thought of chocolate ice-cream and the nama generates the intention & gives inappropriate attention to seeking chocolate ice-cream.

3. Then the sense organs/bases (eyes, tongue, body & mind) engage to seek chocolate ice-cream; such as walking to the freezer and looking for, holding with the hand & prepared to taste chocolate ice-cream.

This is how nama-rupa conditions the six sense bases.

[coconut]

Also, I'd advise against getting into metaphysical and philosophical of what is nama or what is rupa, these are fruitless and don't lead anywhere and isn't what the Budda taught. The Buddha's teaching is simple but subtle, not complex metaphysical mental masturbation.

What is the "metaphysical and philosophical" here, as opposed to working definitions of the terms which enable us to understand what the Buddha meant?

There's nothing to speculate about what he meant, he explicitly defines everything:

"And what [monks] is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are, [monks], called name-&-form."

[Sam Vara]

Also, I'd advise against getting into metaphysical and philosophical of what is nama or what is rupa, these are fruitless and don't lead anywhere and isn't what the Budda taught. The Buddha's teaching is simple but subtle, not complex metaphysical mental masturbation.

What is the "metaphysical and philosophical" here, as opposed to working definitions of the terms which enable us to understand what the Buddha meant?

There's nothing to speculate about what he meant, he explicitly defines everything:

"And what [monks] is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are, [monks], called name-&-form."

I appreciate that you want to explain your interpretation of the terms. What I am asking is why, given that the Buddha apparently "explicitly defines everything", you think there is a danger of "metaphysical mental masturbation". Has anyone done that?

[coconut]

What is the "metaphysical and philosophical" here, as opposed to working definitions of the terms which enable us to understand what the Buddha meant?

There's nothing to speculate about what he meant, he explicitly defines everything:

"And what [monks] is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are, [monks], called name-&-form."

I appreciate that you want to explain your interpretation of the terms. What I am asking is why, given that the Buddha apparently "explicitly defines everything", you think there is a danger of "metaphysical mental masturbation". Has anyone done that?

Yes, in this thread. People coming up with all these philosophical interpretations that clearly go against the definitions in the suttas.

The suttas define everything, no need to speculate.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3] Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

"And what is the water property? The water property may be either internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's water, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's water, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal water property. Now both the internal water property & the external water property are simply water property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.

"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, & savored gets properly digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now both the internal fire property & the external fire property are simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.

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

[Ceisiwr]

Nama = designation, mostly due to the actions of sanna (which is not simple “perception”).

Rupa meant appearance in the philosophical milieux that the Buddha moved in. Namarupa as “designation and appearance” is what he would have been taught during his time practicing in the Upanishadic tradition, before he switched to trying Jainism. If the Buddha wanted to be clear that namarupa meant “mind and matter” he could have used the more definitive “sarīra” rather than the more airy “rupa”. DN 15 is the most explicit demonstration of the Upanishadic underpinnings of this term.

[Sam Vara]

There's nothing to speculate about what he meant, he explicitly defines everything:

I appreciate that you want to explain your interpretation of the terms. What I am asking is why, given that the Buddha apparently "explicitly defines everything", you think there is a danger of "metaphysical mental masturbation". Has anyone done that?

Yes, in this thread. People coming up with all these philosophical interpretations that clearly go against the definitions in the suttas.

Can you show where? People are coming up with different interpretations, some based on translations of the suttas, and another using a bit of scholarly research into what terms might have meant in the Buddha's time. These different interpretations might even (with a bit of luck and good will!) be compatible. But where's the metaphysics and the mental masturbation?

[coconut]

I appreciate that you want to explain your interpretation of the terms. What I am asking is why, given that the Buddha apparently "explicitly defines everything", you think there is a danger of "metaphysical mental masturbation". Has anyone done that?

Yes, in this thread. People coming up with all these philosophical interpretations that clearly go against the definitions in the suttas.

Can you show where? People are coming up with different interpretations, some based on translations of the suttas, and another using a bit of scholarly research into what terms might have meant in the Buddha's time. These different interpretations might even (with a bit of luck and good will!) be compatible. But where's the metaphysics and the mental masturbation?

There's no need to speculate "What terms might have meant" when he explicitly and outright defines them, as I just quoted the Buddha defining the four elements.

[Ceisiwr]

The suttas define everything, no need to speculate.

That is a list of things which show the earth quality, or the water quality etc. The 4 elements aren’t physical objective “things”, unless you think that fire and water as well as beauty are all found as external and real “things” inside the log of wood:

Friends, do you see that large wood pile over there?”

“Yes, friend,” the monks replied.

“Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

“If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water… fire… wind… beautiful… unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive.”

https://suttacentral.net/an6.41/en/thanissaro

In the Abhidhamma commentaries the 4 elements take on a more substantial existence as physical “things”.

[Sam Vara]

There's no need to speculate "What terms might have meant" when he explicitly and outright defines them, as I just quoted the Buddha defining the four elements.

Yes, I understand what you mean. Are you saying that approaches which attempt to find out what particular terms meant in the Buddha's time are the ones at fault here?

I'm not criticising your position at all here - just interested in what you mean, as I personally don't know what to make of these terms.

[Sam Vara]

The suttas define everything, no need to speculate.

That is a list of things which show the earth quality, or the water quality etc. The 4 elements aren’t physical objective “things”, unless you think that fire and water as well as beauty are all found as external and real “things” inside the log of wood:

Friends, do you see that large wood pile over there?”

“Yes, friend,” the monks replied.

“Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

“If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water… fire… wind… beautiful… unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive.”

https://suttacentral.net/an6.41/en/thanissaro

Yes, this is the possibility of the two approaches (Yours, and the idea that the answer is simply defined as something like "mind and matter") being compatible. Back to Bishop Berkeley!

[coconut]

The suttas define everything, no need to speculate.

That is a list of things which show the earth quality, or the water quality etc. The 4 elements aren’t physical objective “things”, unless you think that fire and water as well as beauty are all found as external and real “things” inside the log of wood:

Friends, do you see that large wood pile over there?”

“Yes, friend,” the monks replied.

“Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

“If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water… fire… wind… beautiful… unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive.”

https://suttacentral.net/an6.41/en/thanissaro

In the Abhidhamma commentaries the 4 elements take on a more substantial existence as physical “things”.

All that is saying is that the 4 elements are not created/manifested but already present, as is the attractive and repulsive elements, thus mindfulness isn't about creating things like feelings, which many people believe one should "create" joy, but about seeing what is already present, and that we must shift our attention/focus to a repulsive element which is present in everything to develop dispassion for it. What is repulsive is on the "aging, illness, death" part of the impermanence spectrum.

Hence one of my older posts showing a picture side by side of a young beautiful woman and an old repulsive woman with rotting teeth, one should focus on the decay side of impermanence.

This has nothing to do with your interpretation.