Two aspects of rupa?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Two aspects of rupa?

Post by 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?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by SarathW »

Pardon me for using Abhidhamma.
As per Abhidhamma it is the Great element and Gocara Rupa.

https://puredhamma.net/tables-and-summa ... rial-form/

What it saying is This Pureoctd contact with internal Rupa it rise to experience in five senses.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by DooDoot »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:09 am What's your understanding of the distinction being made here? What do these two aspects of rupa represent, practically speaking?
DN 15 says:
How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?

If consciousness were not to gain a footing in mentality-materiality, would an origination of the mass of suffering — of future birth, aging, and death — be discerned?
According to DN 15, the two aspects of rupa represents rebirth & rebirth.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by SarathW »

"And what 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 called name-&-form.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Perhaps I did not understand your question.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by DooDoot »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:55 am Perhaps I did not understand your question.
https://suttacentral.net/dn15/en/bodhi
“It was said: ‘With consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality.’

How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Looking at the Pali, does upadayarupam mean something like "clingable form"?

And if so, might the distinction be similar to SN 22.48, that between aggregates and clinging aggregates?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:55 am
"And what 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 called name-&-form.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Perhaps I did not understand your question.
What's the difference between the two aspects of form described?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by SarathW »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:14 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:55 am
"And what 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 called name-&-form.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Perhaps I did not understand your question.
What's the difference between the two aspects of form described?
Say if you have a flower in your hand. It got earth property as Rupa and got the nice smell as nama.
This is equaling of my first answer.
:shrug:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Bundokji »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:09 am 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 verbal distinction that is made between the four elements and form opens the possibility of perceiving them differently without equating them. In the model of two realities, where distinctions are made between ultimate truths and conventional truths, form belongs to the realm of conventional truths where the elements are perceived as form. The concept of ultimate truths, practically speaking, implies that conventional truths are constructs and their existence is justified through serving a function/practical necessity. Perceiving form in the elements (which are mere characteristics of materiality from a phenomenological POV) is the basis of empirical knowledge, of linear view of time, of designations based on existence and non-existence, and of reproducibility and replicability of phenomena (what we designate as memory) through an interactive relationship between name and form that constructs an identity or a persona that is both subject to birth, persistence through change and cessation.

From a Buddhist point of view, there are also practical implications in relation to determining the knowledge of the Arahant, what does it mean to be awakened, and how to use conventions without being ignorant about them. Two views are often presented: the Arahant can still perceive form in the elements but without being deluded about it, or, any perception of form in the elements is necessarily deluded hence practitioners confuse the verbal expressions of the Arahant of him perceiving form in the elements when he does not.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:20 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:14 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:55 am
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Perhaps I did not understand your question.
What's the difference between the two aspects of form described?
Say if you have a flower in your hand. It got earth property as Rupa and got the nice smell as nama.
This is equaling of my first answer.
:shrug:
Using the flower example, what is the difference between the 2 aspects of form in the OP?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by SarathW »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:01 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:20 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:14 am

What's the difference between the two aspects of form described?
Say if you have a flower in your hand. It got earth property as Rupa and got the nice smell as nama.
This is equaling of my first answer.
:shrug:
Using the flower example, what is the difference between the 2 aspects of form in the OP?
The smell of the smell is Dependently originated from the flower.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:22 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:01 am
SarathW wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:20 am
Say if you have a flower in your hand. It got earth property as Rupa and got the nice smell as nama.
This is equaling of my first answer.
:shrug:
Using the flower example, what is the difference between the 2 aspects of form in the OP?
The smell of the smell is Dependently originated from the flower.
But what exactly is the flower here? Is it:
1. A great element, or mixture of elements?
2. Form derived from the great elements?
3. A sense-object?
4. A perception?
5. Something else?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by Spiny Norman »

I notice that MN140 talks about detaching the mind from the elements, rather than appropriating them, or clinging to them as "me" and "mine". Does this support the idea of upadayarupam meaning "clingable form", rather than "derived form"?

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by DooDoot »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:12 am Looking at the Pali, does upadayarupam mean something like "clingable form"?

And if so, might the distinction be similar to SN 22.48, that between aggregates and clinging aggregates?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
The Pali in SN 22.48 is upādāniyaṁ (adjective)
And what are the five grasping aggregates?

Katame ca, bhikkhave, pañcupādānakkhandhā?

Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped: this is called the aggregate of form connected with grasping.

Yaṁ kiñci, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā sāsavaṁ upādāniyaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati rūpupādānakkhandho.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.48/en/sujato
The Pali in SN 12.2 is upādāya (absolutive; adverb)
Reverend Ānanda, the notion “I am” occurs because of grasping, not by not grasping.
upādāya, āvuso ānanda, asmīti hoti, no anupādāya.

Grasping what?
Kiñca upādāya asmīti hoti, no anupādāya?

The notion “I am” occurs because of grasping form,
Rūpaṁ upādāya asmīti hoti, no anupādāya.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.83/en/sujato
What are the eighteen currents of craving that derive from the interior?
Katamāni aṭṭhārasa taṇhāvicaritāni ajjhattikassa upādāya?

When there is the concept ‘I am’, there are the concepts ‘I am such’, ‘I am thus’, ‘I am otherwise’; ‘I am fleeting’, ‘I am lasting’; ‘mine’, ‘such is mine’, ‘thus is mine’, ‘otherwise is mine’; ‘also mine’, ‘such is also mine’, ‘thus is also mine’, ‘otherwise is also mine’; ‘I will be’, ‘I will be such’, ‘I will be thus’, ‘I will be otherwise’.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.199/en/sujato
“Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, do fetters, insistence, shackles, and attachments arise?”

“Kismiṁ nu kho, bhikkhave, sati, kiṁ upādāya, kiṁ abhinivissa uppajjanti saṁyojanābhinivesavinibandhājjhosānā”ti?

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.158/en/sujato
Therefore, if upādāya in SN 12.2 was related to grasping, the translation would likely be:
The four primary elements, and form because of grasping the four primary elements.
Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ.

This is called form.
Idaṁ vuccati rūpaṁ.
Obviously, since grasping is the 9th condition of Dependent Origination, how could grasping occur at the 4th condition? :shrug: Unless occurring in a previous rebirth or past life! :shock:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Two aspects of rupa?

Post by 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.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply