On Tradition

[Ceisiwr]

Have you also read in the same sutta Pitaka, the following words?
This Dhamma is for the mindful,
not for the confused;
This Dhamma is for the composed,
Not for the flustered:

This Dhamma is for the wise,
not for the unwise;
This Dhamma is for the precise and the one
who delights in exactness,
not for the diffused or
the one who delights in diffusion

I don't see the relevance.

Have you read Anuruddha Samyutta?
What does that tell you?

There is the same general pattern of giving the basic outline of satipaṭṭhāna.

What does the
establishment of mindfulness mean to you?
What is its goal?

Keeping in mind the body or what is connected with the body, the hedonic aspect of the experience, the quality of the mind and the nourishment and starvation of the enlightenment factors and hindrances respectively. The goal is samādhi, to achieve the 4 Jhānas.

Can you explain why you (on DW) often say Buddha's meditation and the meditation prevalent Before Buddha were the same?

Because we know that other ascetics were practicing the Jhānas, based on the texts themselves.

What are the similarities?

The experience.

Which brings us back to DO. Now you have proclaimed on DW if Buddha lived today that nama-rupa is not how he would begin the teaching of DO.
If Buddha lived today
how would you teach Buddha to explain the arising of consciousness?
How would you improve on this crucial teaching of the Buddha?

Coëmgenu already addressed this for me above.

Can OP first explain to us how he understands Nama-Rupa.

It depends on the sutta, on the context. Sometimes it means and external sense object and at other times it means the individual being who is being reborn. In the case of the standard 12-link formula or dependent origination nāma = the 3 immaterial aggregates plus or including manasikāro whilst rūpa = the 4 elements and one's physical form, or shape, based on those elements as per the Iron Age theory at the time. Nāma then is the condition for the mind base, whilst rūpa is the condition for the other 5 sense bases. This is then how the 6 fold sense bases depend upon name & form in the 12-fold link scheme.

What is that context? Is that the context in which Uapanishads used these words? Or was Buddha teaching in a non-upanishadic way here?
Hugs

He is fairly close the Uapanishadic understanding, based on what I have read. Nāmarūpa there can mean literally named forms. The things we see label which follow the establishing of the 4 great elements according to that cosmology, or it can mean a person. Literally their name and form, with the two senses being related and only being a matter of emphasis IMO.

[Ceisiwr]

At that time this world was without real distinctions; it was distinguished simply in terms of name and visible appearance—"He is so and so by name and has this sort of an appearance." So even today this world is distinguished simply in terms of name and visible appearance, as when we say, "He is so and so by name and has this sort of an appearance."

Penetrating this body up to the very nailtips, he remains there like a razor within a case or a termite within a termite-hill. People do not see him, for he is in-complete as he comes to be called breath when he is breathing, speech when he is speaking, sight when he is seeing, hearing when he is hearing, and mind when he is thinking. These are only the names of his various activities. A man who considers him to be any one of these does not understand him, for he is incomplete within any one of these. One should consider them as simply his self (atman), for in it all these become one.

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7

Name and visible appearance is Patrick Olivelle's translation of nāmarūpa.

name and visible appearance: see BU 1.4.5 n. The term rupa has been traditionally translated as "form." I believe that this is misleading, especially if we give "form" a philosophical, or even Aristotelian, connotation. Bodewitz (1985) has shown that visvarupa (lit., "omniform"), a term used especially with reference to the sun (see, e.g., CU 5.13.1) and gold, actually means having many shining colors, and therefore glittering or dazzling: "Evidence for the interpretation of the -rupa compounds as refer-ring to color and outward impression ('glitter') rather than to form has been adduced from the oldest Vedic literature" (Bodewitz 1985, 16). The term rupa may refer to more than mere color (e.g., also to shape; see Geldner 1911, 128, n. 694), but it clearly indicates the way something appears to our sight (see BU 1.6.2).

The Early Upanisads by Patrick Olivelle

So the Buddha is fairly close to this meaning, and does sometimes use nāmarūpa in this sense. When it comes to the 12-link formula he has changed things slightly. Instead of just name instead we have how we name. Likewise instead of just visible appearances we have how we come to know external objects, which is through having a body.

[Ceisiwr]

This is taken from Liudmila Olalde's "Nāmarūpa; a Linguistic Perspective". One of the images (sorry, don't know in what order they will be posted) shows how the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad pairs rūpa as a sense object with the eye as it's sense organ, or simply with "vision" instead of eye. Likewise nāma is paired with speech. In the other image there is a comparison of the different cosmologies of the early Upanishads, of how they understood the world to have unfolded. There too we see the connection with simply "named forms". When we get to the Praśnopaniṣad we see a connection between nāmarūpa and individuals.

5"Now, take these rivers. They flow toward the ocean and, upon reaching it, merge into the ocean and lose their name and visible appearance; one simply calls it the ocean. In just the same way, these sixteen parts of the person who is the perceiver proceed toward the person and, upon reaching him, merge into that person, losing their names and visible appearances; one simply calls it the person. He then becomes partless and immortal.

We see the same in the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad

8. Just as rivers flowing become lost in an ocean, giving up both their name and form, just so, the knower, freed from name and form, attains the bright Purusha which is beyond the avyakta.

Olivelle puts the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad as being contemporary with or post-Buddhist whilst the Praśnopaniṣad is likely post-Buddhist, although he admits that dating these texts is never going to be accurate. Interestingly we see this rivers and oceans imagery in the suttas

[Coëmgenu]

Have you also read in the same sutta Pitaka, the following words?
This Dhamma is for the mindful,
not for the confused;
This Dhamma is for the composed,
Not for the flustered:

This Dhamma is for the wise,
not for the unwise;
This Dhamma is for the precise and the one
who delights in exactness,
not for the diffused or
the one who delights in diffusion

I don't see the relevance.

It seems pretty clear to me. Pulsar is trying to use the Buddha's words to suggest that their interlocutor is confused, flustered, unwise, diffused, and delighting in diffusion. It's a pretty standard sort of thing to have coming out of that user. It's also a disgusting misuse of the buddhavacana. Does Pulsar wish to try to spin this in some other way?

[Pulsar]

OP wrote

Pulsar wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:33 am

Have you also read in the same sutta Pitaka, the following words?
This Dhamma is for the mindful,
not for the confused;
This Dhamma is for the composed,
Not for the flustered:

This Dhamma is for the wise,
not for the unwise;
This Dhamma is for the precise and the one
who delights in exactness,
not for the diffused or
the one who delights in diffusion

I don't see the relevance.

You don't see the relevance??
You don't see the relevance of mindfulness, composure, non-proliferation and wisdom? for an understanding of
Dependent origination???
Thank you

[Coëmgenu]

But that's just so obvious.... why present that as if it were a contrarian thesis unless you thought your interlocutor lacked those qualities?

[Ceisiwr]

It seems pretty clear to me. Pulsar is trying to use the Buddha's words to suggest that their interlocutor is confused, flustered, unwise, diffused, and delighting in diffusion. It's a pretty standard sort of thing to have coming out of that user. It's also a disgusting misuse of the buddhavacana. Does Pulsar wish to try to spin this in some other way?

I did have that suspicion.

[Pulsar]

Retrofuturits Brief Sutta Based refutation of Abhidhamma viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40493

For those who are struggling with the definition of nama-rupa (according to Buddha) a rereading of Retro's well thought out post may help.

If not now, maybe in ten years, but that length of time might depend on the length of time it will take to erase the false notions fed by the abhidhamma machinery.
V. Sujato was introduced to Buddhisms via abhidhamma, it took him ages to erase that info, and find the Buddha via the suttas, he admits.

Just as it takes time to move away from a fraudulent sutta on the 4 establishments like DN 22/MN10 and to find a sutta on Origination like SN 47.42, that shows how the mind gets established according to Dependent origination.

love and hugs

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pulsar,

Just as it takes time to move away from a fraudulent sutta on the 4 establishments like DN 22/MN10 and to find a sutta on Origination like SN 47.42, that shows how the mind gets established according to Dependent origination.

Not here, as it's not directly relevant to Ceisiwr's topic, but I'd be interested in exploring with you what you find to be in error about the Satipatthana Suttas. From memory, I have no issue with them, although I am pretty sure I understand them differently to most people. It might make for an interesting conversation, so feel free to kick off a topic if you're interested in such an exchange.

Metta,
Paul.