Two aspects of rupa?

[DooDoot]

I think the final section of MN1 lends weight to the idea that the OP distinction is really between elements and appropriated elements....

I already appeared to have satisfactorily answered the question. It appears impossible for the meaning of "grasping" to apply to the nama-rupa definition.

[asahi]

Obviously, since grasping is the 9th condition of Dependent Origination, how could grasping occur at the 4th condition? Unless occurring in a previous rebirth or past life!

I already appeared to have satisfactorily answered the question. It appears impossible for the meaning of "grasping" to apply to the nama-rupa definition.

Not so . If due to ignorance arises the fabrication of self notion would be in the second link .

[DooDoot]

Not so . If due to ignorance arises the fabrication of self notion would be in the second link .

No. If self notion inherently arose at the 2nd link, dukkha would arise at the 2nd link.

[Spiny Norman]

Obviously, since grasping is the 9th condition of Dependent Origination, how could grasping occur at the 4th condition? Unless occurring in a previous rebirth or past life!

I already appeared to have satisfactorily answered the question. It appears impossible for the meaning of "grasping" to apply to the nama-rupa definition.

Not so . If due to ignorance arises the fabrication of self notion would be in the second link .

It appears that the theme of clinging, grasping and appropriation runs right through DO, so a simplistic linear analysis of the nidanas is probably inadequate.

Actually in the OP I was looking generally at the stock phrase for rupa in the suttas, rather than specifically examining it's use in DO.
There seem to be various different interpretations of DO, so it's a can of worms.

[mikenz66]

I think the final section of MN1 lends weight to the idea that the OP distinction is really between elements and appropriated elements,
"The Tathagata.. directly knows earth as earth... he does not conceive earth to be 'mine'..."
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi

So the OP distinction between the two aspects of rupa is not about noumena and phenomena, or elements and sense objects, or whatever.

Rather it's about form and appropriated form, or elements and elements that are clung to.
Similar to the distinction in SN 22.48.

Yes, I think there is a tendency to overinterpret MN1 as some mysterious statement about knowledge. In the Nanmoli/Bodhi and Sujato translations it's clearly about identification:

The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha directly knows earth as earth.
But he doesn’t identify with earth, he doesn’t identify regarding earth, he doesn’t identify as earth, he doesn’t identify that ‘earth is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in earth.
Why is that?
Because the Realized One has completely understood it to the end, I say.
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato

Mike

[Spiny Norman]

I think the final section of MN1 lends weight to the idea that the OP distinction is really between elements and appropriated elements,
"The Tathagata.. directly knows earth as earth... he does not conceive earth to be 'mine'..."
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi

So the OP distinction between the two aspects of rupa is not about noumena and phenomena, or elements and sense objects, or whatever.

Rather it's about form and appropriated form, or elements and elements that are clung to.
Similar to the distinction in SN 22.48.

Yes, I think there is a tendency to overinterpret MN1 as some mysterious statement about knowledge. In the Nanmoli/Bodhi and Sujato translations it's clearly about identification:

The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha directly knows earth as earth.
But he doesn’t identify with earth, he doesn’t identify regarding earth, he doesn’t identify as earth, he doesn’t identify that ‘earth is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in earth.
Why is that?
Because the Realized One has completely understood it to the end, I say.
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato

Mike

I think it's like the difference between "This is my house, and I've spent a lot of money improving it."
and "Yeah, whatever, it's just another pile of bricks.."

Anyway, I think it's fine to talk simply about rupa as "materiality", or material stuff. There's no need to complicate things with long unpronounceable words like phenomenononology.

The important point surely is about how we relate to material stuff. "My body" and "my house" usually mean we are attached and clinging to these material things.

[asahi]

The stock description of rupa in the suttas goes like this:
"The four great elements, and form derived from them."
"Cattaro ca mahabhuta, cattunanca maha bhutanam upadayarupam."

What's your understanding of the distinction being made here? What do these two aspects of rupa represent, practically speaking?

Practically speaking , the four great elements are the features or properties being sense by the five sense fields . Whereas the form derived from them stands for the five sense objects .

[Spiny Norman]

The stock description of rupa in the suttas goes like this:
"The four great elements, and form derived from them."
"Cattaro ca mahabhuta, cattunanca maha bhutanam upadayarupam."

What's your understanding of the distinction being made here? What do these two aspects of rupa represent, practically speaking?

Practically speaking , the four great elements are the features or properties being sense by the five sense fields . Whereas the form derived from them stands for the five sense objects .

Yes, that's a common interpretation, but I'm not convinced it's correct, for the reasons I've outlined above.

A practical example might help. If you're looking at the sea, where is the distinction between "water" (element) and "sight of water" (sense-object)? And why would this distinction be relevant to suffering, and the end of suffering?

[asahi]

A practical example might help. If you're looking at the sea, where is the distinction between "water" (element) and "sight of water" (sense-object)? And why would this distinction be relevant to suffering, and the end of suffering?

The rupa (elements) stands for the five sense fields and what's being sense where the contact happens .The rupa derived (form) are the sense objects . Sight of water are the visual consciousness . In between the craving happens thus causes suffering .

[Spiny Norman]

A practical example might help. If you're looking at the sea, where is the distinction between "water" (element) and "sight of water" (sense-object)? And why would this distinction be relevant to suffering, and the end of suffering?

The rupa (elements) stands for the five sense fields and what's being sense where the contact happens .The rupa derived (form) are the sense objects . Sight of water are the visual consciousness . In between the craving happens thus causes suffering .

I don't see how that kind of analysis helps though. It seems to me the "problem" with the elements is wanting them to be a certain way, and that happens when we interact with them in a self-referential way. So the problem is not the elements themselves (they're just elements), but our appropriation of the elements (see MN1).

For example, the sea here is still quite cold this time of year, and not that comfortable if you're swimming in it. But the sea is just the sea, and it's not there for the personal convenience of somebody wanting a swim.

[asahi]

I don't see how that kind of analysis helps though. It seems to me the "problem" with the elements is wanting them to be a certain way, and that happens when we interact with them in a self-referential way. So the problem is not the elements themselves (they're just elements), but our appropriation of the elements (see MN1).

For example, the sea here is still quite cold this time of year, and not that comfortable if you're swimming in it. But the sea is just the sea, and it's not there for the personal convenience of somebody wanting a swim.

I dont gets whats your point . Pls rephrase .

[mjaviem]

...
"The four great elements, and form derived from them."
"Cattaro ca mahabhuta, cattunanca maha bhutanam upadayarupam."
...

...
I think it's like the difference between "This is my house, and I've spent a lot of money improving it."
and "Yeah, whatever, it's just another pile of bricks.."
...

I like this. "The bricks and the house derived from them".

[Spiny Norman]

...
"The four great elements, and form derived from them."
"Cattaro ca mahabhuta, cattunanca maha bhutanam upadayarupam."
...

...
I think it's like the difference between "This is my house, and I've spent a lot of money improving it."
and "Yeah, whatever, it's just another pile of bricks.."
...

I like this. "The bricks and the house derived from them".

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. What I've been suggesting is more like "Houses generally" and "My house", or "Bodies generally" and "My body".

Elements generally v. elements I regard as mine.

[pegembara]

In my personal opinion, rupa represents the material world that we experience through seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching for example a flower. The derived rupa is when we bring the "external" experience into our internal world. For example, when we think of someone or chocolate cake, that is a derivative of rupa. The memory of the painful experience of a hammer dropping on one's feet is an aspect of rupa.

The non-rupa/nama are our intentions, views, opinions, feelings, thoughts, and perceptions towards rupa. The non-material things.

Rupa=representation of the material world.
Nama-rupa=the totality of our experience

Without consciousness, there is can be experience and vice versa.

Since rūpa refers to the manifestation of physical phenomena in consciousness, the rūpakkhandha can be perceived not only via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body, but also by the mind. When you imagine color blue, it has the property of “blueness” and it is regarded as rūpa. Such rūpa as perceived in mind consciousness is, if you like, an echo or reflection or interpretation of perceptions through the exterior senses. (“Reflection”, incidentally, is another of the meanings of nimitta.)

Sujato
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wh ... upa/3064/3

[Bundokji]

Another applications of rupa as elements instead of form is revealing the link between how individual identities and social identities are constructed. The four elements are often referred to nowadays as water-energy-food-environment nexus. The elements are basis for forming societies where human relations become one of control. Regulating rivers is necessary for agriculture, and food production is necessary for energy and survival where having a fixed location in time and space location makes humans interested in weather (such as climate change). The universal nature of the air element, which is metaphorically the mind, affects governance structure. Technology and globalization is changing our perception of the elements and we are now faced with threats of global nature (such as global warming) which refers to the cross-border nature of the air element. Thinking about the elements from that perspective and its relation to identity can be interesting.