An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think?

- Dhamma Wheel

Dhamma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of the

Theravada

Search
Search

FAQ

Register

Login

Board index Modern Theravda General Theravda discussion

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think?

Forum rules

Post Reply

Search this topic

17 posts
Page 1 of
1

Search

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by retrofuturist Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:38 am
P
o
Greetings,
s
t

From page 98 of Ediriwira Sarachchandra's "Buddhist Psychology of Perception"

retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008
9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne,
Australia
Contact:

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
r
e
t
r
o
f
u
t
u
r
i
s
t

Sylvester
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009
9:57 am

"External stimulus (rupa) and the subjective individual (nama)."

Thereby entailing the conjoinment of object-subject duality when designated as nama-rupa
Any thoughts on this definition? Advantages, disadvantages... etc.
Metta,
Retro.
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one
is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but
that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)
I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing,
blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes. (MN 31)
Never again...
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by Sylvester Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:50 am
P

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

Slurp!
I think you'll find DN 15 very amenable in being read to accomodate this (even if it is missing
the 4 dhatus formula), although I'm not sure if "rupa" is being used in 2 senses in that sutta, or
just purely to account for consciousness.
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by Kori Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:53 am
P
o
That's
pretty much the definition as I had learned it to
s
that
nama-rupa is the same thing as phassa (contact).
t
Kori
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Apr 11,
2011 8:04 am
Location: IL, USA
Contact:

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
K
o
r
i

ground
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25,
2009 6:01 am

be, although that leads me to conclude

I'm not quite sure what nama-rupa is

really supposed to be.

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our
thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure
thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."
Dhammapada, Ch. 1, Verse 2.

o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by ground Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:03 am
P
o
Perhaps
the term "external" is problematic because it entails a lot of
s
depending
on which conventional perspective one chooses to adopt.
t

possible fabrications

Kind regards
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by mikenz66 Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:12 am
P
HioRetro,
s
t
mikenz66
Posts: 12064
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009
7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Is it available on-line anywhere? Presumably an interesting early scholarly treatise?

Buddhist psychology of perception
by E. R. Sarathchandra.
Published 1958 by Ceylon University Press in Colombo .
Written in English.

Mike
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by retrofuturist Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am
P
o

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

Greetings Mike,
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be online for free.
retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008
9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne,
Australia
Contact:

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
r
e
t
r
o
f
u
t
u
r
i
s
t

I got my copy direct from the (re)publishers, the Buddhist Cultural Centre in Sri Lanka for just
US$1.60 plus post - http://www.buddhistcc.net/bookshop/book ... p?bid=1376
...but it's also available through BPS here http://www.bps.lk/other_sri_lankan_publishers.asp
at US$4 plus post.
And yes, as you note, it is early, and interestingly predates much of the works of venerable
Nanavira and Nanananda who also challenged the prevailing notion of nama-rupa as "mind and
matter" or "mind and body".
There certainly seems to be something of a groundswell in Sri Lanka in the mid 20th century...
it's hard to imagine that it's all unrelated.
Metta,
Retro.
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one
is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but
that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)
I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing,
blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes. (MN 31)
Never again...
o
p

Sylvester
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009
9:57 am

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by Sylvester Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:58 am
P
Hioretro
s
t

Would Sarachchandra's discussion of Nama-Rupa have included the various subtle differences in
"Nama-Rupa" versus "Namakaya" and "Rupakaya" that is found in the Mahanidana Sutta DN 15?
Ven Thanissaro interprets Namakaya in a "functional" manner (ie as mental activity), while
many modernist interpret the khandhas in an "experiential" fashion. I'm not so sure if the
excerpt from Sarachchandra is to be read in which fashion, but the canonical definition
elsewhere (SN 12.2) of Nama as including attention and contact does look like a functionalist
one, since manasikara and phassa do not look like something that can be patisamvedi, unlike
feeling, perception or intention.
o
p
pegembara
Posts: 761
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009
8:39 am

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by pegembara Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:34 am
P
o
s
t

In the traditional exegesis, pancupdnakkhandh (five aggregates of clinging) and nmarpa (name-and-form) are used interchangeably, implying that these two are the same. As
Ven. avra Thera also pointed out in his Notes on Dhamma, this is a dubious

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

interpretation that does not find explicit support in the Suttas. I ask Bhante ananda how
we should understand the connection between pancupdnakkhandha and nma-rpa.
It is quite common to hear that these two are the same: that rpa-updnakkhandha is the
same as the rpa in nama-rpa, and the other four aggregates are nma. That is like trying to
measure distance in kilograms a confusion.
In that beautiful sem
inar in a moonlit night recorded in the Mahpuama Sutta, it is made
quite clear that vina cannot be a part of nma. One venerab
le asks Ko hetu ko paccayo
rpakkhandhassa papanya? and so on what is the cause for the designation of each
aggregate? And the Buddha answers that it is the four great elements that give rise to the
designation of an aggregate of form. For vedan, sa and sakhra, it is phassa contact.
But for vina, the cause is nma-rpa.

https://www.readability.com/articles/ec ... kmarklet=1

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from
idle chatter: This is called right speech.
o
p
Sylvester
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009
9:57 am

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by Sylvester Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:41 am
P
o
Unfortunately,
Nama includes phassa, per
s
t

SN 12.2.

If phassa is nothing more than the triad of ayatana, indriya and vinnana, then it seems that
vinnana already has one foot in Nama...
One of those dilemmas that keep me awake at night.
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by retrofuturist Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:47 am
P
o
Greetings
Sylvester,
s
t

Sorry, no detail of the type you specify... the comment wasn't really the central part of the
points being made. Just stated, rather matter-of-factly.
retrofuturist
Posts: 15729
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008
9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne,
Australia
Contact:

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
r
e
t

Metta,
Retro.
"When we transcend one level of truth, the new level becomes what is true for us. The previous one
is now false. What one experiences may not be what is experienced by the world in general, but
that may well be truer. (Ven. Nanananda)
I hope, Anuruddha, that you are all living in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing,
blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes. (MN 31)
Never again...

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

o
p

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by gavesako Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:32 pm
P
o in one Sutta it says explicitly "this body
And
s
t

gavesako
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009
5:16 pm
Location: England

and external nama-rupa".

Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kikusalagaves anuttara santivarapada pariyesamno... (MN 26)
ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
o
p

pulga
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Nov 14,
2010 3:02 pm

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by pulga Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:04 pm
P
o
s
gavesako wrote:
t

And in one Sutta it says explicitly "this body and external nama-rupa".

Dear Bhante,
In the Cahatthipadopamasutta it states:
Katam cvuso, pathavdhtu? Pathavdhtu siy ajjhattik, siy bhir. Katam cvuso,
ajjhattik pathavdhtu? Ya ajjhatta paccatta kakkhaa kharigata updinna,
seyyathida kes lom nakh dant taco masa nhru ahi ahimija vakka hadaya
yakana kilomaka pihaka papphsa anta antagua udariya karsa, ya v
panaampi kici ajjhatta paccatta kakkhaa kharigata updinna. Aya vuccatvuso,
ajjhattik pathavdhtu. Y ceva kho pana ajjhattik pathavdhtu, y ca bhir
pathavdhtu, pathavdhtureves. Ta neta mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attti
evameta yathbhta sammappaya dahabba. Evameta yathbhta
sammappaya disv pathavdhtuy nibbindati, pathavdhtuy citta virjeti. ( mutatis
mutandis the other three dhatu)
The gist of this passage as I read it, is that internal rupa is no different than external, and of
course since rupa can only appear through nama we experience both the body and the world as
nama-rupa. Rupa seems to be the source of the objective nature of experience (without
implying a subject). In his book on Yogacarin Buddhism Dan Lusthaus has taken to translating it
as facticity. (I haven't seen the book apart from what appears on Google, so I'm withholding
judgement on his interpretation for now.)
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?

Jason
Posts: 471
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009

by Jason Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:17 pm

P
o
Interesting.
I also find Gombrich's ideas (via
s
interesting,
e.g., from pg. 135:
Taught
t

Jurewicz) about nama-rupa in What the Buddha

Pure consciousness is thus at best reflexive, cognizing itself. From this reflexivity, in

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

C
o
n
t
a
c
t
J
a
s
o
n
pulga
Posts: 687
Joined: Sun Nov 14,
2010 3:02 pm

which there is still only one entity, develops an awareness of subject and object; this in
turn leads to further individuation, until we reach the multiplicity of our experience :
individuation both by name (nama), using linguistic category, and by appearance (rupa),
perceptible to the senses.

"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by pulga Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:05 pm
P
o
s
Kori wrote:
t

That's pretty much the definition as I had learned it to be, although that leads me to conclude
that nama-rupa is the same thing as phassa (contact). I'm not quite sure what nama-rupa is
really supposed to be.

Hi Kori,
You'll probably want a second opinion, but here's my take. In any given experience both pair of
ayatana (i.e. the internal and external bases) are present, and last only so long as the
experience lasts. They are what provide the spatiality to an experience, the here, the there,
and the in-between. The coming together of internal and external bases is phassa. But note
that phassa is only one facet of an experience. Feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), attention
(manasikara), and intention (cetana) also are necessary to constitute a single lived experience
from a particular point of view. And that is why all of these aspects are classified under nama.
Nama is what gives shape to rupa, it orients it, gives it significance, makes it intelligible. The
experience itself is nama-rupa, and in order to be present it has to be cognized, i.e. it is
dependent on consciousness (vinnana).
There are all sorts of ideas floating about, so I wouldn't give too much weight to my
interpretation. The important thing is to think for yourself, and to come to an understanding
that you believe in.
pulga
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by acinteyyo Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:38 pm
P
o
s
retrofuturist wrote:
t

Greetings,

From page 98 of Ediriwira Sarachchandra's "Buddhist Psychology of Perception"

acinteyyo
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Jun 01,
2009 9:48 am

"External stimulus (rupa) and the subjective individual (nama)."

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

Location: Bavaria /
Germany

Thereby entailing the conjoinment of object-subject duality when designated as nama-rupa

Any thoughts on this definition? Advantages, disadvantages... etc.
Metta,
Retro.

Greetings Retro,
I think it's quite misleading. "External stimulus" and "subjective individual"? External of what, of
the subjective individual? Stimulus for what, for the subjective individual? What is the
subjective individual supposed to be?
It sounds to me like taking rupa for being some kind of external object(s) stimulating an
assumed subjective individual (nama?). This definition creates the impression of having its
foundation in some kind of attavada, doesn't it?
This hardly can be brought in line with the teachings of the Buddha, I guess.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cha bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhaceva papemi, dukkhassa ca nirodha. (M 22)
o
p

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by daverupa Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:24 pm
P
o
Perhaps
we might bring namarupa into the
s
t

common lexicon, and refer thusly:

"And what is namarupa? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called
nama. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is
called rupa. This nama & this rupa are called namarupa." ~SN 12.2
daverupa
Posts: 5318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011
6:58 pm

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit,
development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way
that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience,
harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one
protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
o
p

rowyourboat
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009
5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do

you think?
by rowyourboat Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:41 pm
P
o
'..and
form dependent on the four element': does that suggest
s
sensing
rupa through the other sense door like sight, sound vs
t

an external world- or is it about

hardness, temperature etc being

felt through the body/skin door.

I found Ven Sariputta talking about form in a very external world vs body (external form vs
internal form) in this sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... #sariputta

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think? - Dhamma Wheel

He talks of the four elements as actual earth, fire etc when it comes to the external form, but
more experientially when it comes to the body. I wonder if theBuddha gave these elements
new interpretations to fit in with the experiential element of his teaching.
With metta
Matheesha
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha

Display posts from previous: All posts

posts

Sort by Post
time
Post time

Ascending
Ascending

o
p

Go

17 posts
Page 1 of
1

Post Reply
Return to General Theravda discussion

Jump to

WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu_Samahita, Coyote and 4 guests
Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine

Board index

Powered by phpBB Forum Software phpBB Limited

GZIP: Off

DhammaWheel.com is associated with DharmaWheel.net, DhammaWiki.com, and TheDhamma.com

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074&p=126934[14/8/2558 4:09:28]