I don't see the relevance and significance of this post.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:49 pmThat talks about kaya (body), yes. The definition of rupa in namarupa is always the 4 elements and the form/image/appearance derived from them. You could take this to mean their shape. Shape of course can be related to matter if you wish to acknowledge such a thing, but it’s always an abstraction.
Nāmarūpa
Re: Nāmarūpa
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
In order to best communicate with ascetics and Brahmins it would be wise to use terms they are familiar with, and we see that the Buddha did just that. A lot of his words are simply borrowed from elsewhere, and seem to have been common to many. Does it not then make sense that when we read something like namarupa, we should at least be informed by what Brahmins understood by that term (which does appear in the Upanishads)? I think so. Personally I don’t think there is a namarupa floating around or whatever. I think it’s a concept used to correct a misunderstanding, nothing more.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:44 pm [Furthermore the application or practice reflects on what is meant by the word. The Buddha said in the Gotami sutta if something doesn't lead to dispassion and letting go it's not his teaching, so whatever non-ariyans believed isn't important. Seeing the body as mere elements and not a self that can be owned leads to dispassion and giving up since you realize the body belongs to the world/environment, because it it's composed of the world/environment, it doesn't belong to 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.”
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.”
Re: Nāmarūpa
Sure but if he wants them to attain right view than he would show then the proper usage and context of these words which is exactly what Satipatthana and several other suttas do. The context and usage of these words is the 4NT and 3C resulting in dispassion and letting go.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:52 pmIn order to best communicate with ascetics and Brahmins it would be wise to use terms they are familiar with, and we see that the Buddha did just that. A lot of his words are simply borrowed from elsewhere, and seem to have been common to many. Does it not then make sense that when we read something like namarupa, we should at least be informed by what Brahmins understood by that term (which does appear in the Upanishads)? I think so.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:44 pm [Furthermore the application or practice reflects on what is meant by the word. The Buddha said in the Gotami sutta if something doesn't lead to dispassion and letting go it's not his teaching, so whatever non-ariyans believed isn't important. Seeing the body as mere elements and not a self that can be owned leads to dispassion and giving up since you realize the body belongs to the world/environment, because it it's composed of the world/environment, it doesn't belong to you.
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
To bring this somewhat back to my OP, and bearing in mind the section, do you have anything to add regarding the definition namarupa based on the language, grammar, etymology etc?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
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.”
Re: Nāmarūpa
Okay. Let's try again.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:44 pmToday we have multiple meanings for words, you can have a word mean different things in different subjects like in chemistry, biology, physics. The past is no different.Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:34 pmYou really think brahmins talking with the Buddha, on meeting him for the first time, when they don't know anything about the Buddhist Dhamma, would, in using important metaphysical brahminic terms, be referring to the orthodox Buddhist meanings (interpretations) of said terms, and not the brahminic meanings?
Furthermore the application or practice reflects on what is meant by the word. The Buddha said in the Gotami sutta if something doesn't lead to dispassion and letting go it's not his teaching, so whatever non-ariyans believed isn't important. Seeing the body as mere elements and not a self that can be owned leads to dispassion and giving up since you realize the body belongs to the world/environment, because it it's composed of the world/environment, it doesn't belong to you.
Bob grows apples. He doesn't know that there is a tech company called Apple. He meets Steve, the CEO of Apple. Bob asks Steve a question about apples. Is Bob asking Steve about Apple smartphones, or about apples?
Re: Nāmarūpa
Yes, the Buddha changed the meaning of these words by applying them to the context of the four noble truths resulting in dispassion and letting go.
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
Sorry, misread a post.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
I meant in terms of linguistics. Grammar, etymology and so on not doctrine as such.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
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.”
Re: Nāmarūpa
What about the times when this brahminic term was used by brahmins who were meeting the Buddha for the first time, and did not know about these established orthodox Buddhist re/mis/interpretations? E.g. as we can see in Snp 5.
Re: Nāmarūpa
A better analogy would be Steve telling Bob, "hey bob, all I talk about is technology, so everything I talk about falls under the context of technology"
“But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Good, good, Anuradha! Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”
Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
It is etymologyCeisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:59 pmI meant in terms of linguistics. Grammar, etymology and so on not doctrine as such.
Learn to pronounce etymology
/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/
noun
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
All wrong though. The conversation starts with Bob, and neither of them discuss the meaning of 'apple' before the conversation. Bob doesn't know what Steve manufactures or what he calls his products. The obvious conclusion: they'll be talking about apples, not smartphones. E.g. Snp 5.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:03 pmA better analogy would be Steve telling Bob, "hey bob, all I talk about is technology, so everything I talk about falls under the context of technology"
“But, Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Good, good, Anuradha! Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'
Re: Nāmarūpa
Sure until one explicitly states what he is referring to, which the Buddha has done multiple times.Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 pm
All wrong though. The conversation starts with Bob, and neither of them discuss the meaning of 'apple' before the conversation. Bob doesn't know what Steve manufactures or what he calls his products. The obvious conclusion: they'll be talking about apples, not smartphones. E.g. Snp 5.
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.
Re: Nāmarūpa
Steve may or may not decide to 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. Therefore, there is no one correct interpretation of namarupa, with everything else being false.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:09 pmSure until one explicitly states what he is referring to, which the Buddha has done multiple times.Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 pm
All wrong though. The conversation starts with Bob, and neither of them discuss the meaning of 'apple' before the conversation. Bob doesn't know what Steve manufactures or what he calls his products. The obvious conclusion: they'll be talking about apples, not smartphones. E.g. Snp 5.
Re: Nāmarūpa
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"Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:12 pmSteve 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.un8- wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:09 pmSure until one explicitly states what he is referring to, which the Buddha has done multiple times.Mr. Seek wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 pm
All wrong though. The conversation starts with Bob, and neither of them discuss the meaning of 'apple' before the conversation. Bob doesn't know what Steve manufactures or what he calls his products. The obvious conclusion: they'll be talking about apples, not smartphones. E.g. Snp 5.
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.