Agree.
Vinnana paccaya Namarupa
Namarupa paccaya Vinnana
However, what is crucial here is the Upadana.
In my opinion, Buddha also had Nama-rupa without clinging (upadana)
Agree.
Not necessarily. They only appear dual directional in teachings that don't explain all 12 conditions.
OK. It could be. If I am not wrong, this info only appear at one place in the Nikaya.
Then it occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi:
‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’
‘kimhi nu kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā viññāṇan’ti?
Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo:
‘When name and form exist there’s consciousness. Name and form are a condition for consciousness.’
‘nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.
So that explanation appears twice in the nikaya?Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:46 am Here's Yet Another sutta for: "nāmarūpa paccaya vinnanam"
sn12.65
Then it occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi:
‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’
‘kimhi nu kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā viññāṇan’ti?
Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo:
‘When name and form exist there’s consciousness. Name and form are a condition for consciousness.’
‘nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.
form wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:55 amSo that explanation appears twice in the nikaya?Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon May 17, 2021 8:46 am Here's Yet Another sutta for: "nāmarūpa paccaya vinnanam"
sn12.65
Then it occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi:
‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’
‘kimhi nu kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā viññāṇan’ti?
Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom:
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo:
‘When name and form exist there’s consciousness. Name and form are a condition for consciousness.’
‘nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.
“Well, Reverend Sāriputta, is consciousness made by oneself? Or by another? Or by both oneself and another? Or does it arise by chance, not made by oneself or another?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, paraṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca viññāṇaṁ, udāhu asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ viññāṇan”ti?
“No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, consciousness is not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance, not made by oneself or another.
“Na kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, na paraṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, na sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca viññāṇaṁ, nāpi asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ viññāṇaṁ.
Rather, name and form are conditions for consciousness.”
...
...
...
“Well then, reverend, I shall give you a simile.
“Tenahāvuso, upamaṁ te karissāmi.
For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said.
Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṁ jānanti.
Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.
Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṁ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṁ.
In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness.
Evameva kho, āvuso, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṁ;
Ere sun and dawn man calls and calls one Deity by the other's name.
When the Unborn first sprang into existence he reached that independent sovran lordship;
than which aught higher never hath arisen.
Nāma nāmnā johavīti purā sūryāt puroṣasaḥ |
yad ajaḥ prathamaṃ saṃbabhūva sa ha tat svarājyam iyāya
yasmān nānyat param asti bhūtam
AVŚ 10.7.31
dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe
mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca
martyaṃ cāmṛtaṃ ca
sthitaṃ ca yac ca
sac ca tyaṃ ca
Verily, there are two forms of Brahman,
the formed and the formless,
the mortal and the immortal,
the unmoving and the moving,
the manifested/real/actual (sat) and This one/Him (sya).
BṛĀrUp. 2.3.1
This immortal entity is veiled by the real (manifest):
tad etad amṛtaṃ satyena channam
the vital breath (prāṇa) is the immortal entity,
prāṇo vā amṛtam
and name and form are the real (manifest-satya),
nāmarūpe satyam
and by them the immortal entity is covered.
tābhyām ayaṃ prāṇaś channaḥ
BrhUp 1.6.3
seyaṃ devataikṣata hantāhamimāstisro devatā anena
jīvenātmanānupraviśya nāmarūpe vyākaravāṇīti
ChUp 6.3.2
‘That deity willed, ‘Well, let me enter into these three deities (viz. fire, water and earth) - by mean of this living self (Jivatman) - and develop names and forms.
(Note: Sat is the primary being - fire is its first creation - out of fire comes water - out of water comes food, [this earth is food, since it is on her that all food ripens - SBr 7.4.2.1].
All the manifestations of the world derive from these three elements/deities).
____________________The same way, my dear, that by one lump of clay, all that is made of clay becomes known, the difference being only a name arising from speech, while the truth is that it is just clay.
ChUp 6.1.4
How quaint? another way of putting it. Folks wrongly think rupa in DO is solid matter. Do deals with mental creations of suffering only.name and form are inseparable.
They are not. They refer to two separate linked events in DO.Does not (mind n matter) & (mentality n materiality) not synonymous ?
This is true.so the same figure got seven different types of Nama-rupa for seven different people.
Hence we are living in a world of Nama-rupa created by ourselves.
Thank you, thank you. Yes, it seems. Snp 4.11 (Quarrels and Disputes) and Snp 5.16 (Pingiya's Questions) led me to this conclusion. In the former, it's clearly said that form (rūpa), pleasure and pain (dukkha, sukha), are just objectification-classifications (papañcasaṅkhā) dependent on apperception (sañña). In the latter discourse, Pingiya, after complaining of old age taking its toll on his body, is told to let go of rūpa, is told that people suffer on account of their rūpa.
Yeah. Not my idea though. Found it in one of Alexander Wynne's books. Apparently it's older than Buddhism.
Sn 4..11 taught me how to correct my wrong understanding of DO. It is one of the earliest explanations of DO, with no corruption whatsoever. With time as sectarianism advanced, folks thought DO was about Buddha trying to explain Rebirth. Looks like most believed in rebirth then. What was there to explain?Thank you, thank you. Yes, it seems. Snp 4.11 (Quarrels and Disputes).
Thanks for pointing this out, I had read Snp 5.16, but this particular phrase? wow, it is nice to be with someone who pays attention to such.and Snp 5.16 (Pingiya's Questions) led me to this conclusion. In the former, it's clearly said that form (rūpa), pleasure and pain (dukkha, sukha), are just objectification-classifications (papañcasaṅkhā) dependent on apperception (sañña). In the latter discourse, Pingiya, after complaining of old age taking its toll on his body, is told to let go of rūpa, is told that people suffer on account of their rūpa.
Your excerpt is referring to Mythology. I am not sure whether it is older than Buddhism. Mythology survived on the truths that they fancifully elaborated. Many of Buddha's teachings were snuck into the Upanisad, or Jain types of literature, which creates confusion for Buddhists.Yeah. Not my idea though. Found it in one of Alexander Wynne's books. Apparently it's older than Buddhism