Nāmarūpa

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Mr. Seek »

un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:17 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:12 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:09 pm

Sure until one explicitly states what he is referring to, which the Buddha has done multiple times.
Steve may or may not decide to make a joke about apples, or use the term in reference to his smartphones, but that doesn't change the facts: in that conversation, at least one usage of the term apple will be as per Bob's understanding. The same applies to all brahminic terms in the suttas. There is no one correct interpretation of namarupa, with everything else being false.
This is the Buddha's teaching, the Buddha sets the rules and he explicitly stated them. If Bob is asking for Steve on Apple trees, which is like brahmans asking the Buddha on Eternalism/Annihilationism, and Steve goes "No no, I only talk about technology", that's like the Buddha saying "No no, that's wrong view, my teaching only deals with suffering, and that's right view"
Bob doesn't know what products Steve is manufacturing, or what he calls them. He goes to Steve and asks a question about apples. Steve may or MAY NOT turn the conversation around and discuss Apple smartphones. Steve may very well just talk to Bob about apples. Did I forget to mention that Steve grew [possibly the best] apples before becoming the CEO of Apple? Yeah, just like how the Buddha (vedagu) went and learned about namarupa from other teachers, before becoming the Buddha, before deciding to occasionally flip some terms around (apple becomes Apple) when the situation requires it. There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false.
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by un8- »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:17 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:12 pm
Steve may or may not decide to make a joke about apples, or use the term in reference to his smartphones, but that doesn't change the facts: in that conversation, at least one usage of the term apple will be as per Bob's understanding. The same applies to all brahminic terms in the suttas. There is no one correct interpretation of namarupa, with everything else being false.
This is the Buddha's teaching, the Buddha sets the rules and he explicitly stated them. If Bob is asking for Steve on Apple trees, which is like brahmans asking the Buddha on Eternalism/Annihilationism, and Steve goes "No no, I only talk about technology", that's like the Buddha saying "No no, that's wrong view, my teaching only deals with suffering, and that's right view"
Bob doesn't know what products Steve is manufacturing, or what he calls them. He goes to Steve and asks a question about apples. Steve may or MAY NOT turn the conversation around and discuss Apple smartphones. Steve may very well just talk to Bob about apples. Did I forget to mention that Steve grew [possibly the best] apples before becoming the CEO of Apple? Yeah, just like how the Buddha (vedagu) went and learned about namarupa from other teachers, before becoming the Buddha, before deciding to occasionally flip some terms around (apple becomes Apple) when the situation requires it.

There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false.
100% irrelevant, the Buddha said constantly that his teaching only falls within the scope of suffering. To deny this is, is to be a puthujanna.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Mr. Seek »

un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:35 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:17 pm

This is the Buddha's teaching, the Buddha sets the rules and he explicitly stated them. If Bob is asking for Steve on Apple trees, which is like brahmans asking the Buddha on Eternalism/Annihilationism, and Steve goes "No no, I only talk about technology", that's like the Buddha saying "No no, that's wrong view, my teaching only deals with suffering, and that's right view"
Bob doesn't know what products Steve is manufacturing, or what he calls them. He goes to Steve and asks a question about apples. Steve may or MAY NOT turn the conversation around and discuss Apple smartphones. Steve may very well just talk to Bob about apples. Did I forget to mention that Steve grew [possibly the best] apples before becoming the CEO of Apple? Yeah, just like how the Buddha (vedagu) went and learned about namarupa from other teachers, before becoming the Buddha, before deciding to occasionally flip some terms around (apple becomes Apple) when the situation requires it.

There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false.
100% irrelevant, the Buddha said constantly that his teaching only falls within the scope of suffering. To deny this is, is to be a puthujanna.
100% relevant. Have you no idea how conversations work? Ajita the brahmin in Snp 5 goes and asks the Buddha how is namarupa brought to a halt. The Buddha gives an answer. This is Ajita's first time meeting the Buddha. He hasn't heard anything about the Dhamma yet. None of them make an agreement on what interpretation of namarupa they're going to be using before or after the conversation. The Buddha may very well be talking about a brahminic namarupa, not the namarupa invented by puthujanna scholars in 100 BC obsessed with giving an explanation (often wrong) for every term and thing in the universe (as if that relates to suffering and its cessation).

There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false.
Last edited by Mr. Seek on Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by un8- »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:43 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:35 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:24 pm
Bob doesn't know what products Steve is manufacturing, or what he calls them. He goes to Steve and asks a question about apples. Steve may or MAY NOT turn the conversation around and discuss Apple smartphones. Steve may very well just talk to Bob about apples. Did I forget to mention that Steve grew [possibly the best] apples before becoming the CEO of Apple? Yeah, just like how the Buddha (vedagu) went and learned about namarupa from other teachers, before becoming the Buddha, before deciding to occasionally flip some terms around (apple becomes Apple) when the situation requires it.

There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false.
100% irrelevant, the Buddha said constantly that his teaching only falls within the scope of suffering. To deny this is, is to be a puthujanna.
100% relevant. Have you no idea how conversations work? Ajita in Snp 5 goes and asks the Buddha how is namarupa brought to a halt. The Buddha gives an answer. This is Ajita's first time meeting the Buddha; he hasn't even heard his Dhamma yet. None of them make an agreement on what interpretation of namarupa they're using. The Buddha may very well be talking about a brahminic namarupa, not the namarupa invented by puthujanna scholars in 100 BC obsessed with giving an explanation (often wrong) for every term and thing in the universe (as if that relates to suffering and its cessation)
These questions are expanded in detail in other suttas, so you need to read the other suttas for example this expands on Ajitas question https://suttacentral.net/sn12.31/en/bodhi
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Mr. Seek »

un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:49 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:43 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:35 pm

100% irrelevant, the Buddha said constantly that his teaching only falls within the scope of suffering. To deny this is, is to be a puthujanna.
100% relevant. Have you no idea how conversations work? Ajita in Snp 5 goes and asks the Buddha how is namarupa brought to a halt. The Buddha gives an answer. This is Ajita's first time meeting the Buddha; he hasn't even heard his Dhamma yet. None of them make an agreement on what interpretation of namarupa they're using. The Buddha may very well be talking about a brahminic namarupa, not the namarupa invented by puthujanna scholars in 100 BC obsessed with giving an explanation (often wrong) for every term and thing in the universe (as if that relates to suffering and its cessation)
These questions are expanded in detail in other suttas, so you need to read the other suttas for example this expands on Ajitas question https://suttacentral.net/sn12.31/en/bodhi
This is not how it works. Every sutta describes a separate event involving different individuals. Context matters. We might as well start talking about Tibetan tantras and Pure Land sutras by your loguc! What blasphemy, to compare Snp 5 with other suttas, and to insist they are of equal value.

There is no one correct Buddhist interpretation of brahminic terms such as namarupa, with everything else being false. My arguements thus far make a solid case. You have been defeated and are now eel-wriggling.
Last edited by Mr. Seek on Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by un8- »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:53 pm
un8- wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:49 pm
Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:43 pm
100% relevant. Have you no idea how conversations work? Ajita in Snp 5 goes and asks the Buddha how is namarupa brought to a halt. The Buddha gives an answer. This is Ajita's first time meeting the Buddha; he hasn't even heard his Dhamma yet. None of them make an agreement on what interpretation of namarupa they're using. The Buddha may very well be talking about a brahminic namarupa, not the namarupa invented by puthujanna scholars in 100 BC obsessed with giving an explanation (often wrong) for every term and thing in the universe (as if that relates to suffering and its cessation)
These questions are expanded in detail in other suttas, so you need to read the other suttas for example this expands on Ajitas question https://suttacentral.net/sn12.31/en/bodhi
This is not how it works. Every sutta describes a separate event involving different individuals. Context matters. We might as well start talking about Tibetan tantras and Pure Land suttas by your loguc! What blasphemy, to compare Snp 5 with other suttas, and to insist they are of equal value.
What are you rambling about? The Buddha literally references Ajitas question and literally says by becoming dispassionate towards what ceases one lets go, which is in total alignment with all the other suttas.

Also this is a Theravada forum, if you and Ceiswr want to discuss Vedic language then go to a Vedic or Upanishads forum, this is something Ceiswr tells others to do so he should be fine doing that.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Mr. Seek »

Case is closed on my part. Ceisiwr, what do you think about my conversation with un8? I think it's in the realm of possibilities that such terms may have more than one interpretation in the different suttas. Maybe there might even be cases of talking at cross-purposes in the same sutta.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Ontheway »

I prefer "mentality-materiality", translation given by Bhikkhu Nanamoli (deceased).
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Ceisiwr »

So no answer if it’s grammatically correct to translate as “named forms”?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Coëmgenu »

I figured it was a dvandva compound. That would exclude "named forms" as correct.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by samseva »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 pm So no answer if it’s grammatically correct to translate as “named forms”?
I don't know if this is implied by you, but there is only one subject in your translation—forms, with named being an adjective describing forms. Nāma-rūpa, although conjoined, is two terms and two things. This being common in Pāḷi, like satisampajañña, hirika-ottappa, or thīna-middha and uddhacca-kukkucca in the hindrances.

Edit: Dvandva compounds, like Coëmgenu mentioned.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 pm So no answer if it’s grammatically correct to translate as “named forms”?
I agree with the two posts above, but grammar aside, named forms is no good because it contradicts SN 12.2..
SN 12.2 wrote:“And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form"
Despite this, I believe the definition you advance gets closer to the intent of the phrase than "mind and body" or "mentality and materiality" mentioned by others, which lead the meaning away from its key role in paticcasamuppada, and drags it back down to the unedifying level of purporting an extant psycho-physical organism.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:03 pm I figured it was a dvandva compound. That would exclude "named forms" as correct.
Thank you.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Spiny Norman »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 pm So no answer if it’s grammatically correct to translate as “named forms”?
Naming forms would just be perception (sanna).
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nāmarūpa

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:34 pm Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:28 pm So no answer if it’s grammatically correct to translate as “named forms”?
I agree with the two posts above, but grammar aside, named forms is no good because it contradicts SN 12.2..
SN 12.2 wrote:“And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form"
Despite this, I believe the definition you advance gets closer to the intent of the phrase than "mind and body" or "mentality and materiality" mentioned by others, which lead the meaning away from its key role in paticcasamuppada, and drags it back down to the unedifying level of purporting an extant psycho-physical organism.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I agree that "mind and body" doesn't work, but I still don't understand your objection to "mentality and materiality", given the way that SN12.2 describes it.
It seems you are rejecting the straightforward meaning because it doesn't fit with your preferred interpretation of DO. This is not an objective approach.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply