Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 11070
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:03 pm
I've spent the last few hours saying that rupa doesn't always mean the same thing :roll:
This, once again, makes little sense. The contention has been that rupa in namarupa does not exist in the immaterial realms. Therefore, nama can exist without the 4 great elements and the form derived from them. In Abhidhamma terms, mind can exist without matter. In sutta terms, mind can exist without the 4 mahabhutas and the "forms" derived from them.
However, you just wrote "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana"...
are you suggesting that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned like Nibbana? :popcorn:
No, im stating that if space were an ultimate reality it would be an unconditioned ultimate reality since if space is a real "thing" then its hard to see how it has any arising or ceasing. Interestingly the Sarvāstivādins opted to classify it as an ultimate dhamma, which is why they recognise 3 unconditioned dhammas. Two types of nibbana and space. From a Theravadin position this is untenable since there can only be 1 unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, and so space must be a concept instead.
"Because of attachment to doctrines one approaches and refutes,
For those unattached, how can they dispute?
Not because self or no-self are said to be true,
He has only shaken off all harmful views."


Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:11 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:03 pm However, you just wrote "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana"...
are you suggesting that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned like Nibbana? :popcorn:
No, im stating that if space were an ultimate reality it would be an unconditioned ultimate reality since if space is a real "thing" then its hard to see how it has any arising or ceasing. Interestingly the Sarvāstivādins opted to classify it as an ultimate dhamma, which is why they recognise 3 unconditioned dhammas. Two types of nibbana and space. From a Theravadin position this is untenable since there can only be 1 unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, and so space must be a concept instead.
You are stating this, yes, but your "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana" implies that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned. But it isn't.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 11070
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:16 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:11 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:03 pm However, you just wrote "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana"...
are you suggesting that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned like Nibbana? :popcorn:
No, im stating that if space were an ultimate reality it would be an unconditioned ultimate reality since if space is a real "thing" then its hard to see how it has any arising or ceasing. Interestingly the Sarvāstivādins opted to classify it as an ultimate dhamma, which is why they recognise 3 unconditioned dhammas. Two types of nibbana and space. From a Theravadin position this is untenable since there can only be 1 unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, and so space must be a concept instead.
You are stating this, yes, but your "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana" implies that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned. But it isn't.
Perhaps there is a language barrier going on here. The problem with classifying space as an ultimate reality, and so not a mere concept, is that if space can be said to exist as a substantial "thing" its hard to see any arising or ceasing in it and so it will come under the heading of "unconditioned". No such problem arises when classifying citta as a paramattha dhamma because we can discern its arising and ceasing.
"Because of attachment to doctrines one approaches and refutes,
For those unattached, how can they dispute?
Not because self or no-self are said to be true,
He has only shaken off all harmful views."


Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:20 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:16 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:11 pm

No, im stating that if space were an ultimate reality it would be an unconditioned ultimate reality since if space is a real "thing" then its hard to see how it has any arising or ceasing. Interestingly the Sarvāstivādins opted to classify it as an ultimate dhamma, which is why they recognise 3 unconditioned dhammas. Two types of nibbana and space. From a Theravadin position this is untenable since there can only be 1 unconditioned dhamma, Nibbana, and so space must be a concept instead.
You are stating this, yes, but your "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana" implies that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned. But it isn't.
Perhaps there is a language barrier going on here. The problem with classifying space as an ultimate reality, and so not a mere concept, is that if space can be said to exist as a substantial "thing" its hard to see any arising or ceasing in it and so it will come under the heading of "unconditioned". No such problem arises when classifying citta as a paramattha dhamma because we can discern its arising and ceasing.
I never mentioned space. Your replies are self-referential.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 11070
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:27 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:20 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:16 pm
You are stating this, yes, but your "since if it were a dhamma it would be unconditioned like Nibbana" implies that a dhamma like citta is unconditioned. But it isn't.
Perhaps there is a language barrier going on here. The problem with classifying space as an ultimate reality, and so not a mere concept, is that if space can be said to exist as a substantial "thing" its hard to see any arising or ceasing in it and so it will come under the heading of "unconditioned". No such problem arises when classifying citta as a paramattha dhamma because we can discern its arising and ceasing.
I never mentioned space. Your replies are self-referential.
You referenced it without realising it via this quote:
Therein what is ideational sense-base? The aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of volitional activities and that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base; the unconditioned element.
You didn't realise it because you aren't familiar with the Abhidhamma texts and their classifications.
"Because of attachment to doctrines one approaches and refutes,
For those unattached, how can they dispute?
Not because self or no-self are said to be true,
He has only shaken off all harmful views."


Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:29 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:27 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:20 pm

Perhaps there is a language barrier going on here. The problem with classifying space as an ultimate reality, and so not a mere concept, is that if space can be said to exist as a substantial "thing" its hard to see any arising or ceasing in it and so it will come under the heading of "unconditioned". No such problem arises when classifying citta as a paramattha dhamma because we can discern its arising and ceasing.
I never mentioned space. Your replies are self-referential.
You referenced it without realising it via this quote:
Therein what is ideational sense-base? The aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of volitional activities and that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base; the unconditioned element.
You didn't realise it because you aren't familiar with the Abhidhamma texts and their classifications.
I take your word for it :)
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 11070
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:32 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:29 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:27 pm

I never mentioned space. Your replies are self-referential.
You referenced it without realising it via this quote:
Therein what is ideational sense-base? The aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of volitional activities and that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base; the unconditioned element.
You didn't realise it because you aren't familiar with the Abhidhamma texts and their classifications.
I take your word for it :)
From the Abhidhammattha Sangaha:
Non-concretely produced matter: The types of matter in groups (8)- (11) are designated non-concretely produced matter (anipphannar³pa) because they do not arise directly from the four main causes of matter (see §9) but exist as modalities or attributes of concretely produced matter. Thus they are not included among the ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma).

(8) The space element (±k±sadh±tu): Space, as understood in the Abhidhamma, is not bare geometric extension but the void region that delimits and separates objects and groups of material phenomena, enabling them to be perceived as distinct. The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to display the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter, or as the state of gaps and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited.
https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditati ... dhamma.pdf
"Because of attachment to doctrines one approaches and refutes,
For those unattached, how can they dispute?
Not because self or no-self are said to be true,
He has only shaken off all harmful views."


Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:38 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:32 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:29 pm

You referenced it without realising it via this quote:



You didn't realise it because you aren't familiar with the Abhidhamma texts and their classifications.
I take your word for it :)
From the Abhidhammattha Sangaha:
Non-concretely produced matter: The types of matter in groups (8)- (11) are designated non-concretely produced matter (anipphannar³pa) because they do not arise directly from the four main causes of matter (see §9) but exist as modalities or attributes of concretely produced matter. Thus they are not included among the ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma).

(8) The space element (±k±sadh±tu): Space, as understood in the Abhidhamma, is not bare geometric extension but the void region that delimits and separates objects and groups of material phenomena, enabling them to be perceived as distinct. The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to display the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter, or as the state of gaps and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited.
https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditati ... dhamma.pdf
Here space is not described as "that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base".
Can you quote the passage that does it?
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 11070
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:44 pm

Here space is not described as "that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base".
Can you quote the passage that does it?
The Abhidhammattha Sangaha classifies space under "non-concretely produced matter" since its a concept arising from the "modalities or attributes" of matter. The full list of invisible non-impingent form can be found in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī:
the faculties of femininity
masculinity,
vitality;
intimation by act,
intimation by speech;
the element of space;
the buoyancy of form
plasticity of form
wieldiness of form
integration of form
maintenance
decay
impermanence
solid nutriment.
https://suttacentral.net/ds2.2.3/en/caf_rhysdavids

These dhammas are either inferred to exist as paramattha dhammas or exist solely as concept only, such as with space.
"Because of attachment to doctrines one approaches and refutes,
For those unattached, how can they dispute?
Not because self or no-self are said to be true,
He has only shaken off all harmful views."


Duṭṭhaṭṭhaka Sutta
User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:05 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:44 pm

Here space is not described as "that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base".
Can you quote the passage that does it?
The Abhidhammattha Sangaha classifies space under "non-concretely produced matter" since its a concept arising from the "modalities or attributes" of matter. The full list of invisible non-impingent form can be found in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī:
the faculties of femininity
masculinity,
vitality;
intimation by act,
intimation by speech;
the element of space;
the buoyancy of form
plasticity of form
wieldiness of form
integration of form
maintenance
decay
impermanence
solid nutriment.
https://suttacentral.net/ds2.2.3/en/caf_rhysdavids

These dhammas are either inferred to exist as paramattha dhammas or exist solely as concept only, such as with space.
I see, although I don't understand why writing "that invisible non-impingent form included in the ideational sense-base" instead of "space", but that's ok.

:focus:

Maybe you're right on replacing namarupa with nama, in formless spheres (of which I do not accept the authenticity in the Buddha's teaching, but that's ok). Anyway, I think that namarupa should be understood as Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda used to.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda)
SarathW
Posts: 15159
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by SarathW »

AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:34 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:32 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:26 pm

'No rupa' implies 'no namarupa'? I don't think so. The suttas say that consciousness needs namarupa to arise, and vice versa.
There is no rupa in the immaterial realms.
It's not 'rupa' as intended in 'namarupa'.
:goodpost:

Dependent Origination goes like this for Arupavacara (Formless)

Namarupa paccaya Manayatana (not salayatana)

So it appears there is Namarupa in Formless realm.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 9971
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:37 pm Rupa = the 4 great elements and the form derived form them. These do not exist in the immaterial realms. There is no namarupa there, only consciousness, nama and concept.
Exist? :thinking:
AlexBrains92 wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:34 pm It's not 'rupa' as intended in 'namarupa'.
I disagree.
coconut wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:19 pm You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the suttas rather than second hand sources.

There is consciousness in the formless planes. Consciousness doesn't need FORM to sustain itself, consciousness only needs 3 things to sustain itself

1) Intention
2) Underlying Tendencies
3) Planning
Sounds like the above is wrong view.
coconut wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:19 pm
Take the case of the reincarnation (attabhāvapaṭilābho) :roll: where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. Those sentient beings pass away from that realm due to both their own and others’ intentions. But sir, in the case of the reincarnation (attabhāvapaṭilābho) :roll: where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective, what kind of gods does this refer to?”

“Sāriputta, it refers to the gods reborn (upagā) :roll: in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”

https://suttacentral.net/an4.171/en/sujato
You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the Pali suttas rather than dodgy second hand Australian translations of Sujato.
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
coconut
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:10 am

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by coconut »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:35 pm
You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the suttas rather than dodgy second hand translations of Sujato.
[1] "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Last edited by coconut on Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 9971
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by DooDoot »

coconut wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:50 pm
DooDoot wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:35 pm
You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the suttas rather than dodgy second hand translations of Sujato.
[1] "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next (paro :roll: ) world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn (opapātikā :roll: ) beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Another false translation by American Thanissaro. Pointless. Try studying Pali. The two things highlighted above are both wrong translations. You seem to be riddled with wrong views.

:rolleye:
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
coconut
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:10 am

Re: Let's discuss what exactly is "name and form" in DO

Post by coconut »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:50 pm
coconut wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:50 pm
DooDoot wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:35 pm
You seem to be riddled with wrong views. I recommend you study the suttas rather than dodgy second hand translations of Sujato.
[1] "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Another false translation. Pointless.
:quote: false translation :quote: - oh and let me guess like you said last time :quote: fake sutta :quote: too right?

Perhaps you can translate your own suttas and invent your own dhamma too. :shrug:
Post Reply