Explain Namarupa

[User13866]

Name and form. Apple, ball, cat, are names as are abc.

"Name has conquered everything,
There is nothing greater than name,
All have gone un­der the sway
Of this one thing called name."

"Beings are conscious of what can be named,
They are estab­lished on the nameable,
By not comprehending the nameable things,
They come under the yoke of death."

The wind blows but without the blowing, there is no wind. The wind is a named thing. As is a person.

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.

For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.

Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom: ‘When [vinnana] doesn’t exist there is no name and form. When [vinnana] ceases name and form cease.’

Then it occurred to me: ‘When what doesn’t exist is there no [vinnana]? When what ceases does [vinnana]cease?’ Then, through proper attention, I comprehended with wisdom: ‘When name and form don’t exist, there is no [vinnana]. When name and form cease, [vinnana] ceases.’

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.65/en/suj ... ript=latin

There is a good secular book i like very much It's called Tyranny of Words, by Stuart Chase. Here are some excerpts

That words are not things. (Identification of words with things, however, is widespread, and leads to untold misunderstanding and confusion.) That words mean nothing in themselves; they are as much symbols as x or y. That meaning in words arises from context of situation. That abstract words and terms are especially liable to spurious identification. The higher the abstraction, the greater the danger. That things have meaning to us only as they have been experienced before. “Thingumbob again.” That no two events are exactly similar. That finding relations and orders between things gives more dependable meanings than trying to deal in absolute substances and properties. Few absolute properties have been authenticated in the world outside. That mathematics is a useful language to improve knowledge and communication. That the human brain is a remarkable instrument and probably a satisfactory agent for clear communication. That to improve communication new words are not needed, but a better use of the words we have. (Structural improvements in ordinary language, however, should be made.) That the scientific method and especially the operational approach are applicable to the study and improvement of communication. (No other approach has presented credentials meriting consideration.) That the formulation of concepts upon which sane men can agree, on a given date, is a prime goal of communication. (This method is already widespread in the physical sciences and is badly needed in social affairs.) That academic philosophy and formal logic have hampered rather than advanced knowledge, and should be abandoned. That simile, metaphor, poetry, are legitimate and useful methods of communication, provided speaker and hearer are conscious that they are being employed. That the test of valid meaning is: first, survival of the individual and the species; second, enjoyment of living during the period of survival.

For the individual, as I can testify, a brief grounding in semantics, besides making philosophy unreadable, makes unreadable most political speeches, classical economic theory, after-dinner oratory, diplomatic notes, newspaper editorials, treatises on pedagogics and education, expert financial comment, dissertations on money and credit, accounts of debates, and Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers in general. You would be surprised at the amount of time this saves.

Bad language is now the mightiest weapon in the arsenal of despots and demagogues. Witness Dr. Goebbels.

The American people will never tolerate socialism; will never tolerate fascism; will never surrender their liberties; will never defy their Constitution.” How often have the changes been rung on these stirring statements? One might as well say, “The people of the moon will never tolerate green cheese.” Produce referents for “American people,” “socialism,” “fascism,” “liberty,” “defy their Constitution.” Otherwise such statements can elicit emotion, but little more.

[pegembara]

There is a good secular book i like very much It's called Tyranny of Words, by Stuart Chase.

words are not things. (Identification of words with things, however, is widespread, and leads to untold misunderstanding and confusion.) That words mean nothing in themselves; they are as much symbols as x or y.

I wouldn't call it a secular or even spiritual book. It is just saying how we come to believe in things that is created by the mind.

Mano pubhangama dhamma

[readysetletgo]

Why is it called nama rupa?

And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

It’s a link in the chain. When the link is broken it becomes a residue. I think that is the reason it is called nama rupa. Just feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, and physical form, in and of themselves, with no one attached to them.

[User13866]

There is a good secular book i like very much It's called Tyranny of Words, by Stuart Chase.

words are not things. (Identification of words with things, however, is widespread, and leads to untold misunderstanding and confusion.) That words mean nothing in themselves; they are as much symbols as x or y.

I wouldn't call it a secular or even spiritual book. It is just saying how we come to believe in things that is created by the mind.

Mano pubhangama dhamma

I meant secular as in not particularly religious.

It's a popularization of Alfred Korzybski's "Science & Sanity", he was quite brilliant as i see it.

Korzybski maintained that humans are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Humans cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). 

He thought that certain uses of the verb "to be", called the "is of identity" and the "is of predication", were faulty in structure, e.g., a statement such as, "Elizabeth is a fool" (said of a person named "Elizabeth" who has done something that we regard as foolish). In Korzybski's system, one's assessment of Elizabeth belongs to a higher order of abstraction than Elizabeth herself. Korzybski's remedy was to deny identity; in this example, to be aware continually that "Elizabeth" is not what we call her. We find Elizabeth not in the verbal domain, the world of words, but the nonverbal domain (the two, he said, amount to different orders of abstraction). This was expressed by Korzybski's most famous premise, "the map is not the territory".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski
 

I studied this before Buddhism. He bridged physics of early 1900s and Pavlovian work on sanity.

[pegembara]

Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (/kɔːrˈzɪbski, -ˈzɪp-, -ˈʒɪp-, kəˈʒɪpski/,[2][3] Polish: [ˈalfrɛt kɔˈʐɨpskʲi]; July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics. He argued that human knowledge of the world is limited both by the human nervous system and the languages humans have developed, and thus no one can have direct access to reality, given that the most we can know is that which is filtered through the brain's responses to reality. His best known dictum is "The map is not the territory".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

If I may surmise, he is basically putting into modern language that the world arises in dependence on our six senses -

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[EloniS]

Why is it called nama rupa?

Namarupa is a loan word from the Vedas.

[User13866]

Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (/kɔːrˈzɪbski, -ˈzɪp-, -ˈʒɪp-, kəˈʒɪpski/,[2][3] Polish: [ˈalfrɛt kɔˈʐɨpskʲi]; July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics. He argued that human knowledge of the world is limited both by the human nervous system and the languages humans have developed, and thus no one can have direct access to reality, given that the most we can know is that which is filtered through the brain's responses to reality. His best known dictum is "The map is not the territory".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski

If I may surmise, he is basically putting into modern language that the world arises in dependence on our six senses -

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I am not sure if he figured out that there is no world beyond what the senses present but he did figure out that our knowledge of the world is limited to what our senses present and our thinking about it.

There is a video of him


As i see it, the field of General Semantics isn't complete like Dhamma but it deals with a part of it, in particular the part having to do with the use of words.

[EloniS]

A being is not without that which i can only know by it's name with what is called mind, consciousness or intellect.

And what is it that i can only known & name with mind, consciousness or intellect?

Name that which feels as 'feeling'
Name that which perceives as 'perception'
Name that which intends as 'intention'
Name that by which dhammā come into play as 'attention' because it attends.
Name that by which dhammā originate as 'contact' because it is a meeting of the three of which feeling is born.

Whereas the eye and that which is seen by the eye is called form.

So there is name & form...

I posted namarupa is a loan word from the Vedas. A loan word is usually an important concept in a former doctrine that is redefined in a new doctrine; for the purpose of repudiating the former doctrine. As for your answer, why would "knowing its name" be important to the Buddha? What is the relevance of naming a feeling as 'feeling'? Does naming a feeling as 'feeling' cause suffering? If naming a feeling as 'feeling' does not cause suffering, why would it be taught? Since the scriptures use the concept or what you are calling 'name' of feelings, perceptions, intentions, contacts, attentions many times, are you saying when the Buddha spoke these names this was caused by ignorance? If naming ends when ignorance ends, would not the Buddha have taught a path of total silence, total non-thinking & non-talking? The word 'nama' was probably used because the Buddha was repudiating & redefining the 'namarupa' doctrine of the Vedas. Since the Buddha taught 84,000 teachings using 84,000 names, it does not appear he taught to give up 'naming'. You seem to be taking the word 'namarupa' too literally.

[User13866]

A being is not without that which i can only know by it's name with what is called mind, consciousness or intellect.

And what is it that i can only known & name with mind, consciousness or intellect?

Name that which feels as 'feeling'
Name that which perceives as 'perception'
Name that which intends as 'intention'
Name that by which dhammā come into play as 'attention' because it attends.
Name that by which dhammā originate as 'contact' because it is a meeting of the three of which feeling is born.

Whereas the eye and that which is seen by the eye is called form.

So there is name & form...

I posted namarupa is a loan word from the Vedas. A loan word is usually an important concept in a former doctrine that is redefined in a new doctrine; for the purpose of repudiating the former doctrine. As for your answer, why would "knowing its name" be important to the Buddha? What is the relevance of naming a feeling as 'feeling'? Does naming a feeling as 'feeling' cause suffering? If naming a feeling as 'feeling' does not cause suffering, why would it be taught? Since the scriptures use the concept or what you are calling 'name' of feelings, perceptions, intentions, contacts, attentions many times, are you saying when the Buddha spoke these names this was caused by ignorance? If naming ends when ignorance ends, would not the Buddha have taught a path of total silence, total non-thinking & non-talking? The word 'nama' was probably used because the Buddha was repudiating & redefining the 'namarupa' doctrine of the Vedas. Since the Buddha taught 84,000 teachings using 84,000 names, it does not appear he taught to give up 'naming'. You seem to be taking the word 'namarupa' too literally.

Hi,

In the doctrine of Buddha it is not the naming of things that is the problem but the not understanding of the nameable things.

"Beings are conscious of what can be named,
They are estab­lished on the nameable,
By not comprehending the nameable things,
They come under the yoke of death."

It is true that in dependent origination one's ignorance is the root requisite condition for namarupa. However we shouldn't assert that namarupa, having come into play, remains always accompanied by new ignorance in as far as it persists because things like 'consciousness' and 'old age' are also preluded by ignorance and an arahant is not without these things but he is divorced from ignorance.

I will give an analogy
If a man takes up a loan thinking his bussiness idea is very good but it turns out the opposite. His debt would've been caused by ignorance and having become disillusioned he would still have to make the payments on the loan caused by ignorance even tho no longer delusional.

[EloniS]

things like 'consciousness' and 'old age' are also preluded by ignorance and an arahant is not without these things but he is divorced from ignorance.

Sounds like more study is needed.

I will give an analogy

Best to study more.

If a man takes up a loan thinking his bussiness idea is very good but it turns out the opposite. His debt would've been caused by ignorance and having become disillusioned he would still have to make the payments on the loan caused by ignorance even tho no longer delusional.

Arahant has no debt. The analogy does not fit.

[User13866]

things like 'consciousness' and 'old age' are also preluded by ignorance and an arahant is not without these things but he is divorced from ignorance.

Sounds like more study is needed.

I will give an analogy

Best to study more.

If a man takes up a loan thinking his bussiness idea is very good but it turns out the opposite. His debt would've been caused by ignorance and having become disillusioned he would still have to make the payments on the loan caused by ignorance even tho no longer delusional.

Arahant has no debt. The analogy does not fit.

Greetings Australia,

It is true that an Arahant has done what need to be done in regards to removal of delusion.

However it is not the removal of ignorance which stands for debt in the analogy.

The final debt is payed at parinibbana as they lay down the body & do not take up another and just this is the end wherein all modes of being are abandoned.

It is at parinibbana that old kamma ceases and no new kamma comes into play.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[mjaviem]

... rupa is appearance or looks like...

Interesting.
...

So, when we read "form" and "rūpa" perhaps we must think not other than "physical appearance", meaning the shape, the sound, etc., if I'm not wrong.

cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ — idaṁ vuccatāvuso, rūpaṁ.

The four great elements and the four great elements derived (grasped?) form (physical appearance) — these are called form (physical appearance).

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form (physical appearance)? ‘It is deformed (gets damaged),’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form (physical appearance). Deformed (damaged) by what? Deformed (damaged) by cold, deformed (damaged) by heat, deformed (injured) by hunger, deformed (injured) by thirst, deformed (injured, damaged) by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed (gets damaged, spoiled),’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form (physical appearance).

[mjaviem]

...
Arahant has no debt...

Yes, people who understand perfect and complete liberation in the here and now understand like this. Other views understand the Arahant was simply granted a ticket to one day get final and complete liberation. That's not a here and now understanding.

[Pulsar]

[name redacted by admin] wrote

The final debt is payed at parinibbana as they lay down the body & do not take up another and just this is the end wherein all modes of being are abandoned.
It is at parinibbana that old kamma ceases and no new kamma comes into play.

This is often quoted by buddhists on this forum.
But do you find this in the earliest suttas such as Parayanavagga or Atthakavagga or in the Sagathavagga? It is true enough that it can be found in Itivuttaka. New ideas never taught by Buddha crept into the canon
over time.
Regards

[Pulsar]

ElonIS wrote 

I posted namarupa is a loan word from the Vedas. A loan word is usually an important concept in a former doctrine that is redefined in a new doctrine; for the purpose of repudiating the former doctrine.

 Many thanks for your sanity.
Dr. Ricard Gombrich has dealt with this at length in his publications, and expressed disappointment at the way things are worded in the Pali canon, in the later suttas.
Rupa aggregate is identified as a physicality in later suttas. This makes us think of rupa as a woman (not as the image of the woman reflected in our minds), or rupa as a sound, not the sound echoed in the mind, sound consciousness.
Appearance of sight consciousness (seen), audible consciousness (heard), taste consciousness, touch consciousness is how rupa should be understood? 
In the earliest suttas, rupa is presented as subject to burning SN 35.28 Rupa aggregate burns like the other aggregates.
A condensed excerpt from SN 35.28

All is burning. And what is all? Whatever enters through each sensory door-  sight, sound, flavor....is burning. Mind is burning, ideas are burning, mind consciousness is burning. Also whatever is pleasant, painful, or neutral in regard to sensory input, that too is burning. Burning with what?

Later sutta compilers presented Rupa as something external to the consciousness. The traditions failed us. Buddha did not. Before abhidhamma took matters into their hand, many realized Nibbana. Abhidhamma blocked the path to Nibbana by their innovations. For those  who prefer to transmigrate in heavens and brahma worlds, abhidhamma serves a function. Hinduism adequately served that function. Think of the arupa samapatthis, imported into the canon.
A realistic understanding of nama-rupa, whereby consciousness is renewed,  is what we need. True Mindfulness is a training at preventing the arising of rupas of the mind,  A rupa that is arisen gets named (Nama) or identified, creating a new consciousness. SN 47.42 outlines mindfulness as Buddha intended.
DN 22 or MN 10 outline mindfulness as the Vibajjavadins (a later school) understood it.
Once a contributor to Sutta Central labelled Vibajjavadin as modern Buddhism. Modern how? he was asked, he replied "The sect was born 200 years after  Buddha's demise". Enough time for name and form to take on new implications???
With love