Upādāyarūpaṁ

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by DooDoot »

Spiny Norman wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:01 am So does upadayarupam mean "Form because of grasping"?
Possibly. Assaji or Ven. Dhammanando could confirm. :smile:
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
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:29 am My point is if upādāyarūpaṁ means grasped-rupa then the other conditions would be spoken as upādāyanama, upādāyavinnana, upādāyasalayantana and upādāyaphassa. :smile:
I have just look into MN28 again, the description on clinging is already there, which you replace by grasp and expand further than the 5 aggregates. But frankly, it look strange on upādāyasalayantana and upādāyaphassa.

The Pali word that appears is upādāna.
And what are the five aggregates affected by clinging? They are: the material form aggregate affected by clinging, the feeling aggregate affected by clinging, the perception aggregate affected by clinging, the formations aggregate affected by clinging, and the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging.

Katame cāvuso, pañcupādānakkhandhā?
Seyyathidaṁ—rūpupādānakkhandho, vedanupādānakkhandho, saññupādānakkhandho, saṅkhārupādānakkhandho, viññāṇupādānakkhandho.
If it is ok with Pali, then your suggestions looks fine for now.

It follows after that, the Pali has it as 'upādinnaṁ', earth element that is clung-to (grasped).
And what is the material form aggregate affected by clinging? It is the four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements.

And what are the four great elements? They are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, and the air element.

What, friends, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to:; that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element.

Katamo cāvuso, rūpupādānakkhandho?
Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāya rūpaṁ.

Katamā cāvuso, cattāro mahābhūtā?
Pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu.

Katamā cāvuso, pathavīdhātu?
Pathavīdhātu siyā ajjhattikā, siyā bāhirā.

Katamā cāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu?
Yaṁ ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ, seyyathidaṁ— kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṁsaṁ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṁ vakkaṁ hadayaṁ yakanaṁ kilomakaṁ pihakaṁ papphāsaṁ antaṁ antaguṇaṁ udariyaṁ karīsaṁ, yaṁ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ.

Ayaṁ vuccatāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu.
The issue with the description of rūpa in that passage is not obvious.

The issue become obvious when the rūpa statement appears in the paticcasamuppada MN9, when the statement is reversed with "these are called rūpa". The long post already address that the logic of the content in the statement does not hold well with "derived from". Within paticcasamuppada, the new translation 'form' also does not sits well, as it is above saḷāyatanaṁ - which involves external rūpa; sound can not be included under form. "Sound is a form of energy" does not mean that sound it self is a form. For me, sticking to Materiality is safer.
The four primary elements, and “form because of grasping” the four primary elements.
Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ.
“Form because of grasping the four primary elements” is like creating another object and subject. It reads really odd.

With the phrase “these are call rūpa”, those two subject should be conjoined, and that it pointed onto a single definition- rūpa; then it is conjoint plus homogeneous. If the word ‘upādāya' were to mean ‘because of grasping' the the very same word should appear in the phrase on ‘nama’.
Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention—
This is called name.
Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro—
Idaṁ vuccatāvuso, nāmaṁ
We don’t see ‘upādāya’ in the phrase on 'nama' . The suggestion on “because of grasping” is worth to be considered. But I think those bhikkhus in the past and present, that are fluent in Pali would have notice that. The English translation would have gone into that direction; it is too obvious for them. Grasping intention, contact and attention is particularly strange.

If this is the case, then 'upādāya' should be the catalyst in the phrase, the word that i can come out with that fits the functionality of conjoint, homogeneous and as "a catalyst" is 'integral'. If you have another word that's fits into this, please suggest.

Another word that just come to mind is 'inherent', sounds more conventional.

~~ metta ~~~
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

One question :
Would you ask a question and answer it when you already know ?
Buddha and his disciples at that time already knew what is rupa , why he needs to explain it again ? :shrug:
It was unnecessary to do that , unless the explanation was inserted in a later time for those whom wanted to systematically to impart those knowledge to others .
Say you understand what is sun light , clouds , winds , rains etc etc , unless you wants to write a thesis , would you talk to people in everyday language what is sun light , winds , clouds and rains ? You wouldnt right ? :thinking:
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:56 am
Can you help me on this one, instead. Cause I don't see how 'form' is going to hold this.
Within paticcasamuppada, the new translation 'form' also does not sits well, as it is above saḷāyatanaṁ - which involves external rūpa; sound can not be included under form. "Sound is a form of energy" does not mean that sound it self is a form.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

atipattoh wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:28 am
asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:56 am
Can you help me on this one, instead. Cause I don't see how 'form' is going to hold this.
Within paticcasamuppada, the new translation 'form' also does not sits well, as it is above saḷāyatanaṁ - which involves external rūpa; sound can not be included under form. "Sound is a form of energy" does not mean that sound it self is a form.
Imo rupa in namarupa and salayatana does sits well accordingly . Sound is a kind of rupa . If for convenient sake , other than sight gets translated as form , the other four rupa such as sound smell taste and touch can be translated as form also .
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:46 am Imo rupa in namarupa and salayatana does sits well accordingly . Sound is a kind of rupa . If for convenient sake , other than sight gets translated as form , the other four rupa such as sound smell taste and touch can be translated as form also .
So this 'get translated as' is an internal 'image'. It then should be agreeable that all the while, rūpa for namarupa, an internal object?
This is good.

Are you saying that sound smell taste and touch being transformed as image internally, or what is it.

Why do you think that, common people readily understand internal mental object?

~~ metta ~~~
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

atipattoh wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:56 am
asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:46 am Imo rupa in namarupa and salayatana does sits well accordingly . Sound is a kind of rupa . If for convenient sake , other than sight gets translated as form , the other four rupa such as sound smell taste and touch can be translated as form also .
1. So this 'get translated as' is an internal 'image'. You agree that all the while, rūpa for namarupa, an internal object?
This is good.

2. Are you saying that sound smell taste and touch being transformed as image internally, or what is it.

3. Why do you think that, common people readily understand internal mental object?

~~ metta ~~~
1. Imo rupa can be internal and external .
2. sound smell taste and touch as objects are regarded as rupa and when contacted became an experience .
3. Common people understand the language as it is in those days .
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:19 am
1. Imo rupa can be internal and external.
So, both.
2. sound smell taste and touch as objects are regarded as rupa and when contacted became an experience .
Sound, externally is a form? I know you use the word rupa, but in English, is it form?
3. Common people understand the language as it is in those days .
If you say so.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

The rūpa aggregate (rūpakkhandha) includes the rūpa sense-object (rūpāyatana) as well as the four other material sense-objects (sound, odor, taste and touch).
Therefore , how would you translate it in english ? As i said for convenient sake , the other four that are rupa are called form as well .
If you wish to call it matter or material , that can be confusing for certain people isnt it ?
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:37 am The rūpa aggregate (rūpakkhandha) includes the rūpa sense-object (rūpāyatana) as well as the four other material sense-objects (sound, odor, taste and touch).
Therefore , how would you translate it in english ? As i said for convenient sake , the other four that are rupa are called form as well .
If you wish to call it matter or material , that can be confusing for certain people isnt it ?
No.
Form is out of the league.

At least Materiality is not. Being ignorant is being human. That's why proper discussion is necessary. But a confuses human can learn, if he is willing to. To use a word that is not fit to describe the text; is like having size 8, but wearing size 7 shoes.

In fact i notice that you are still stuck with matter and material. That is not what I said. I said 'Materiality'.

Note, going for lunch break. Catch up when to time permits.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

The rūpa aggregate (rūpakkhandha) includes the rūpa sense-object (rūpāyatana)
, so , rupa appear to be the same in both context . There seems to be different translation amongst the translators .
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 6:02 am The rūpa aggregate (rūpakkhandha) includes the rūpa sense-object (rūpāyatana)
, so , rupa appear to be the same in both context . There seems to be different translation amongst the translators .
The description is similar, that's why your hand is tied. You can not freely use the word 'form' to cover both side of the fence.

It is similar so that there is a flow in the teaching; from shallow (external) to deep (internal). Slowly drilled.

Though the internal that is mention appear to be physical for eye, but when it comes to interpreting the other sense sphere, the interpretation of rupa as 'form' no longer hold. It is meant to be a puzzle to be solved.

Hence, it is not readily known by common people. Solving this puzzle, then we know, when the rūpa is mention with regards to internal, it really means internally 'internal'. That is why, the text has solidity, watery, heat or coolness, motion, being mentioned right before 'clung-to'.

What a person clung-to, is those that he has perceived and experienced. It is the experience of the characteristics of those elements, not the element itself. You experience the quality, not the elements.

B Bodhi's translation is versatile to accommodate the description of both sides of the fence.

I think the new translation is hand tied due to copy right.

Anyway, I'm looking for a most suitable word for upādāya, and currently satisfied with B Bodhi translation of rūpa, unless proven otherwise.

Hopefully, this helps!

~~ metta ~~~
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by Spiny Norman »

IMO the Pali indicates that upadayarupam means something like "clingable form", or "appropiated form". Our personal relationship with the mahabhuta (see MN1).
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by asahi »

atipattoh wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:03 am
Though the internal that is mention appear to be physical for eye, but when it comes to interpreting the other sense sphere, the interpretation of rupa as 'form' no longer hold. It is meant to be a puzzle to be solved.

What a person clung-to, is those that he has perceived and experienced. It is the experience of the characteristics of those elements, not the element itself. You experience the quality, not the elements.
Fyi , in the agama the rupa is 色 . The internal sense bases are 色法. When refers to other sense objects it is 色法 also .
You said the experience of quality or characteristic that are clung to but that is the sense consciousness . If you are referring to the sense objects itself it is just rupa 色法 .
No bashing No gossiping
atipattoh
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:28 am

Re: Upādāyarūpaṁ

Post by atipattoh »

asahi wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 8:06 am Fyi , in the agama the rupa is 色 . The internal sense bases are 色法. When refers to other sense objects it is 色法 also .
You said the experience of quality or characteristic that are clung to but that is the sense consciousness . If you are referring to the sense objects itself it is just rupa 色 and not 色法
So you are suggesting 色 form for external object and
色法 rūpa dhamma, phenomenon of form for internal or what exactly that you are saying?
Specifically point to suttas and we shall see what is it that you want to express.

Whether internal or external, the Pali has it rūpa. The 'and' condition in the description does not creat two aspect of rūpa, since it is pointing onto only one lable of definition.

In the mean time, let's talk about 色.
色(colour) in Chinese, usually couple up with 形色 (various kinds)

‘Form' means 形式 in Chinese. They are not the same.
形 alone means shape.
The definition of Form:
the visible shape (形) or configuration (式) of something.
"the form, colour, and texture of the tree"
You can see that the very example in dictionary, separate form and colour. It is easy to mixed up and got confused.
They are not the same but when couple together, what we get is qualities of the tree.
In Chinese, there is this phrase, 形形色色 (of every hue), that comes from
形形,生成形体。色色,生成颜色。
Various shapes, generate all shape of formations; Various colours, generate all kinds of colours.

「有形者,有形形者;有声者,有声声者;有色者,有色色者。」
「There is shape, there is various shape of formations; there is sound, there is various melodies of sounds, there is colour, there is various kinds of colours.」
形容各色各样,种类很多。
Describe all kinds of colors, many kinds.
形容事物品类繁多、各式各样
Describe a wide variety of things.

If the Chinese wants to say form, it would have been 形法.
色法 is the matter of material aspect that representing a wide range of qualities – the phenomenon of Materiality.
I’ve present an argument for 色 being not form, can you put up a counter argument to say that it is, please. What is the logic behind for rendering 色 as form.

~~ metta ~~~
Post Reply