SDC wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:48 am
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:15 am
“Name-and-matter” is a wretched translation.
Taking into consideration that you find “material form” mentioned often in Pāli/English dictionary entries for
rūpa, and that Bhikkhu Bodhi was partial to the rendering “materiality”, I think “wretched” is a stretch. Rūpa in the suttas is described as “the four great elements and the form derived from them” (SN 22.57), so I think it is most important that the rendering reflect that - form, materiality and matter seem to do so equally IMO.
Considering how many Pāli/English dictionaries base their definitions on Abhidhammic and commentarial ones that isn't surprising. It also isn't surprising that Ven. Bodhi prefers "matter" either, since he is an Abhidhammika. Regarding SN 22.57 you are correct to say that it defines rūpa as the 4 mahābhūta and the upādāya rūpa but seeing as how the 4 mahābhūta are closer to qualities than substances, how rūpa is defined as image/form and further still how the Buddha rejected the very methods of reasoning that allow one to arrive at "matter" I am still struggling how "name & matter" is the most appropriate translation? Further still consider that the suttas actually conflate the body with rūpa:
ayaṃ kho me kāyo rūpī cātumahābhūtiko …"
"'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, …
Rūpa here clearly doesn't mean "matter". Such a position is difficult still when we consider that rūpa in the 5 aggregates, which we have seen is distinct from the body yet related to it, also refers to objects of the other senses:
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact.
Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.
Or even more explicitly here:
“If, friends, internally the ear is intact but no external rūpa come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external rūpa come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external rūpa come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.
“The rūpaṁ in what has thus come to be is included in the rūpa aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging. The perception in what has thus come to be is included in the perception aggregate affected by clinging. The formations in what has thus come to be are included in the formations aggregate affected by clinging. The consciousness in what has thus come to be is included in the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. He understands thus: ‘This, indeed, is how there comes to be the inclusion, gathering, and amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by clinging. Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.
“If, friends, internally the mind is intact but no external rūpa come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the mind is intact and external rūpa come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the mind is intact and external rūpa come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.
“The rūpaṁ in what has thus come to be is included in the rūpa aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging. The perception in what has thus come to be is included in the perception aggregate affected by clinging. The formations in what has thus come to be are included in the formations aggregate affected by clinging. The consciousness in what has thus come to be is included in the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. He understands thus: ‘This, indeed, is how there comes to be the inclusion, gathering, and amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by clinging. Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.
https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/bodhi
The sutta quite clearly states that
rūpa in terms of the
rūpa aggregate refers to
objects of the
6 senses. Visual forms, sounds, tastes, smells, touches and mental phenomenon are
all classed as the
rūpa aggregate. When someone is hearing music the sound is the rūpa aggregate, the vedanā is the vedanā aggregate, the sañña is sañña aggregate, intentions are the formations aggregates and the conscious awareness is the consciousness aggregate. The same for the other 5 senses. How can this be a theory of matter? I just do not see how that is a tenable position. Things get even worse for the ontological realists when we look at the etymology of the word, although of course we can't rely solely on this:
Pāli
Rūpa
- form
- figure
- appearance
- principle of form
Sanskrit
रूप [ rūpa ]
- any outward appearance or phenomenon or colour
- form
- shape
- figure
- dreamy or phantom shapes
This comes from the thematic verb रूप् (rūp) which is in the 10th Gaṇa:
√ रूप् [ rūp ]
- to form
- figure
- represent
Rūpa then is an image or representation of something in sense experience, at any of the 6 senses. To return to the original verse, what the Buddha is saying is that although the ascetics claim an ultimate truth in reality it is merely a personal truth since all they see are their own conceptualisations of sense experience, of rūpa, in line with their craving and clinging.