Craving, Namarupa, Dependent Origination - Discussion
Hi everyone, wanted to make some comments, yet did not want to mess up Nick's excellent job on the Post:
Guided Meditation on Dependent Origination
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5843765
Comments in regard to Bhikkhu Nanananda, which I think are just misundersatndings, and it looks to me that Nicky and Bhikkhu Nanananda are saying the same thing, and that the poverty of the English lanquage is the real issue at hand.
Bhikku Nanananda states the same here:Same sameRight, the cutting off of Craving is the key, or rather a key. Naming, labelling and storytelling, (self) is just a symptom of the disease.
To be clear the concept of Naming is not the same as Nama. Naming is more like the Ego, for lack of a better word. I know the word Ego triggers an unpleasant sensation sometimes, but I do not have a better word, sorry.
That is not what Bhikkhu Nananada is pointing to when he expounds on Name-Form, he even explains that translations are inept at describing namarupa. He is just showing how it works and a way to work backwards through dependent origination to eliminate Craving and Ignorance, he is approaching it from the reverse side in Concept and Reality and Magic of the Mind. Backwards and Forwards, Forwards and Backwards.
Nananda, root cause
So, he does not say specifically that naming , ego, and storytelling must be done away with, it is more like that when craving has been pacified or is at cessation, then the naming , labelling, storytelling ego then ceases, it can not arise, there is no ground to arise from.
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/Paticca%20Samuppada_Vol_1_Rev3.0.pdf
More on craving here:
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/Paticca%20Samuppada_Vol_2_Rev3.0.pdf
Guided Meditation on Dependent Origination
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5843765
Comments in regard to Bhikkhu Nanananda, which I think are just misundersatndings, and it looks to me that Nicky and Bhikkhu Nanananda are saying the same thing, and that the poverty of the English lanquage is the real issue at hand.
Nicky:
Katamañca bhikkhave nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā saññā cetanā phasso manasikāro, idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnaṃ ca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ, idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ, idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ.
What is mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention — these are mentality. The four great elements & the material form derived from the four great elements — these are materiality. So this mentality & this materiality are what is called nāmarūpaṃ.
What is mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention — these are mentality. The four great elements & the material form derived from the four great elements — these are materiality. So this mentality & this materiality are what is called nāmarūpaṃ.
The term ‘nāmarūpa’ (name and form) is variously interpreted by scholars. ‘Nāma’ has nothing to do with ‘bending’ as sometimes explained. The constituents of ‘nāma’ are feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), intention (cetanā), contact (phasso) and attention (manasikāro).11 You may even count these five on your fingers. Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention are collectively called ‘Name’ (nāma).
Then what is called ‘form’ (rūpa)? There again many are confused. Here is the definition of ‘rūpa’in ‘nāmarūpa’. ‘Cattāroca mahābhūtā catuññañca mahābhitānaṁ upādāya rūpaṁ’ ‘The four great primaries and form derived from the four great primaries.’
Confroning consciousness (viññāṇa) in an inter-dependent partnership, there is name and form (nāmarūpa), i.e. feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention together with the four great primaries, earth, water, fire and air and form derived from them.
Then what is called ‘form’ (rūpa)? There again many are confused. Here is the definition of ‘rūpa’in ‘nāmarūpa’. ‘Cattāroca mahābhūtā catuññañca mahābhitānaṁ upādāya rūpaṁ’ ‘The four great primaries and form derived from the four great primaries.’
Confroning consciousness (viññāṇa) in an inter-dependent partnership, there is name and form (nāmarūpa), i.e. feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention together with the four great primaries, earth, water, fire and air and form derived from them.
Commentary: This is because the naming or differentiating of undifferentiated forms in unrelated to the origination of suffering, since it is craving and (self) becoming that lead to the arising of suffering (rather than differentiating or naming).
To be clear the concept of Naming is not the same as Nama. Naming is more like the Ego, for lack of a better word. I know the word Ego triggers an unpleasant sensation sometimes, but I do not have a better word, sorry.
Despite this redefinition, many contemporary Buddhists use the translation ‘name-form’ (rather than ‘mentality-materiality’) and some (most famously Bhikkhu Ñanananda in his books ‘Concept and Reality’ and ‘Magic of the Mind’) appear to retain the original Brahmanistic/creationist principle and (erroneously) assert it contributes to the origination of suffering.
Nananda, root cause
The root causes for the Saṁsāric existence of beings are ignorance and craving.
So one can understand why the Buddha has preached that in order to attain emancipation, ignorance and craving must be done away with.
So one can understand why the Buddha has preached that in order to attain emancipation, ignorance and craving must be done away with.
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/Paticca%20Samuppada_Vol_1_Rev3.0.pdf
More on craving here:
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/other/Paticca%20Samuppada_Vol_2_Rev3.0.pdf
Thanks PSI. I am simply saying 'namarupa' is the mental faculties that meditate or, otherwise, pursue non-meditative activites. I am saying there is nothing going on at namarupa, apart from right mindfulness or wrong mindfulness. I said namarupa is the 'gatekeeper'. 
I am not saying the same as Bhikkhu Nanandanda, who makes a big deal out of nama-rupa due to adhering to the aprophycal Brahministic Maha Nidana Sutta in the DN, which is contrary to the body of the suttas.
Regards
I am not saying the same as Bhikkhu Nanandanda, who makes a big deal out of nama-rupa due to adhering to the aprophycal Brahministic Maha Nidana Sutta in the DN, which is contrary to the body of the suttas.
Regards
Mahanidana Sutta
This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.
If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned? If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.
If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned? If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
Bhikkhu Nanandanda
Both the name-group and the formgroup derive their respective designations with the help of modes characteristics, signs and exponents.' But the most extraordinary fact about them is that their significance depends on each other Þ a curious reciprocity. A verbal-impression in regard to the formgroup is at all possible because there are those modes, characteristics etc. proper to the name-group. The concept of form is established only when the constituents of the name-group (i.e. feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention) have sufficiently 'experimented' with it. Even the so-called four great-elements or primaries are themselves subject to this test of validity without which they simply could not stand. Thus earth, water, fire and air, actually represent the experiences of solidity, liquidity, heat and motion, in which the name-group plays its part. As 'elements' they are mere abstractions, but they come within the purview of contact 1 as 'form' or 'matter'(råpa) in the guise of verbal-impression which distinguishes between them according to the degree of predominance of their respective qualities. The name-group, for its part, owes its validity to the modes, characteristics etc. proper to the form-group. The notion of resistance or impact goes hand in hand with the concept of form or matter, since the 'actual' impact (i.e. impact par excellence) as something that 'matters', is generally associated with 'matter', ('Seeing is believing. but touch is the real thing!'). Hence feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention find 'actual' objects in the world of matter. In other words, 1. "The four great elements, monk, are the cause, the four great elements are the condition for the designation of the aggregate of form." Þ M. III. 17. MahàPuõõama S. impact or sense-reaction is primarily associated with the signs proper to the form group (pañigha-samphassa), and only secondarily and metaphorically, with those of the name-group. (adhivacanasamphassa). This complex character of name-andform in relation to contact indicates that Buddhism does not recognize a dichotomy between mind and matter. Instead, it reveals that mentality and materiality are inextricably interwoven into 'a tangle-within' and a 'tangle-without'. Name-and-form is seen to play a dual role. In organic combination with consciousness, it is already found in the individual as implied by the expression 'savi¤¤ànaka-kàya' ('the conscious-body'). This is the tangle within. As a thing to be measured with this 'conscious-body', name-and-form is also projected outside into signs (nimitta) in need of interpretation or evaluation. The 'internal'sense-bases and the 'external' sense-bases both partake of name-and-form. The 'measuring-unit' and the thing measured thus presuppose each other, as one may infer from the following Sutta passages : I. “ 'Name', friends, is one end, 'form' is the other end ; consciousness is in the middle; and craving is the seamstress, for it is craving that stitches it into the arising of this and that (form of) existence . . . . ”Þ A. III 400.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books12/Katukurunde-Nanananda-Bhikkhu_the_Magic_of_the_Mind.pdf
Both the name-group and the formgroup derive their respective designations with the help of modes characteristics, signs and exponents.' But the most extraordinary fact about them is that their significance depends on each other Þ a curious reciprocity. A verbal-impression in regard to the formgroup is at all possible because there are those modes, characteristics etc. proper to the name-group. The concept of form is established only when the constituents of the name-group (i.e. feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention) have sufficiently 'experimented' with it. Even the so-called four great-elements or primaries are themselves subject to this test of validity without which they simply could not stand. Thus earth, water, fire and air, actually represent the experiences of solidity, liquidity, heat and motion, in which the name-group plays its part. As 'elements' they are mere abstractions, but they come within the purview of contact 1 as 'form' or 'matter'(råpa) in the guise of verbal-impression which distinguishes between them according to the degree of predominance of their respective qualities. The name-group, for its part, owes its validity to the modes, characteristics etc. proper to the form-group. The notion of resistance or impact goes hand in hand with the concept of form or matter, since the 'actual' impact (i.e. impact par excellence) as something that 'matters', is generally associated with 'matter', ('Seeing is believing. but touch is the real thing!'). Hence feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention find 'actual' objects in the world of matter. In other words, 1. "The four great elements, monk, are the cause, the four great elements are the condition for the designation of the aggregate of form." Þ M. III. 17. MahàPuõõama S. impact or sense-reaction is primarily associated with the signs proper to the form group (pañigha-samphassa), and only secondarily and metaphorically, with those of the name-group. (adhivacanasamphassa). This complex character of name-andform in relation to contact indicates that Buddhism does not recognize a dichotomy between mind and matter. Instead, it reveals that mentality and materiality are inextricably interwoven into 'a tangle-within' and a 'tangle-without'. Name-and-form is seen to play a dual role. In organic combination with consciousness, it is already found in the individual as implied by the expression 'savi¤¤ànaka-kàya' ('the conscious-body'). This is the tangle within. As a thing to be measured with this 'conscious-body', name-and-form is also projected outside into signs (nimitta) in need of interpretation or evaluation. The 'internal'sense-bases and the 'external' sense-bases both partake of name-and-form. The 'measuring-unit' and the thing measured thus presuppose each other, as one may infer from the following Sutta passages : I. “ 'Name', friends, is one end, 'form' is the other end ; consciousness is in the middle; and craving is the seamstress, for it is craving that stitches it into the arising of this and that (form of) existence . . . . ”Þ A. III 400.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books12/Katukurunde-Nanananda-Bhikkhu_the_Magic_of_the_Mind.pdf
Hi Psi,
Thanx for starting this thread. I unfortunately disrupted the flow of Nicky's thread, apologies @Nicky!
At a high level, Blanchard's definition of nama-rupa is "identification". She cites this paragraph which MN 9 attributes to Saraputra:
Blanchard uses the analogy of a field to frame the twelve nidanas. The way we identify things and identify with things, i.e. how we direct our attention to sort out what is happening in our world which she defines as nama-rupa, are the field in which habits grow. The habits are driven by "drives", but not just any drives. Specifically, the problematic drives that lead to defining the self as a kind of interior thing separate and distinct and seemingly unchanging she identifies with sankara, the immediately preceeding link. So nama-rupa becomes the way we feed these drives, i.e. the drives are the cause and nama-rupa is the effect, by directing attention in a particular way. Hence the causal chain.
Batchelor in his latest book After Buddhism expands somewhat on Blanchard's high level view of what nama-rupa is in Chapter 7, Experience, going into quite a bit of detail about how nama-rupa and vinnana relate. Batchelor takes up the use of nama-rupa in the twelve nidanas, specifically the relationship between consciousness and nama-rupa, with this quote from SN 12:2:
This citation is practically identical with Blanchard's above, with the exception that instead of "name & form" he leaves namarupa untranslated.
Batchelor notes that during the Buddha's time, the four great elements were not as later described, but rather were taken phenomenologically, in other words, what we sense of our environment through our embodied experience. He also states that while many translators translate namarupa as "name and form", there is no "and" in the original Pali. This has led to the misunderstanding that namarupa means "mind and body", but the Pali word for "mind" is citta, which consciousness is a synonmyn of, though the suttas also use the term vinnana for consciousness. This mistaken understanding comes clearly out of the Western tradition of Descartes and is not there in the original text.
Batchelor goes on to discuss how the Buddha saw consciousness arising, as an emergent property rather than being unconditioned. He cites this paragraph from DN 16:
In other words, namarupa and vinnnana mutually condition each other. Batchelor is a big proponent of this view, when I spoke with him during the pilgrimage I did with him in 2010, he told me that his experience in deep meditation was exactly this.
He goes on to say that the mutually interdependent relationship can be seen as a result of the two factors playing a particular role. Name-form is needed to generate a unified consciousness, while consciousness is needed to bring name-form into focus. "Embodied attention" (manasikara) is the fifth nama factor. What this is according to Batchelor is "activity in the mind", in other words, contact with the environment triggers a particular perception, causes experience to feel a certain way, inclines us to adopt a particular stance toward it, and causes the direction of attention toward it. This is manasikara.
Anyway, as Nicky points out further down in this thread, there's also a lot of aprophycal Brahministic material in the suttas that one could cite and which is used by many to reinforce the three lifetimes interpretation, but there are a number of people, with Blanchard and Batchelor among them, who have drilled down into the original Pali and used particular textual analysis to extract out of the suttas what are more likely to be original.
Thanx for starting this thread. I unfortunately disrupted the flow of Nicky's thread, apologies @Nicky!
At a high level, Blanchard's definition of nama-rupa is "identification". She cites this paragraph which MN 9 attributes to Saraputra:
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.
Batchelor in his latest book After Buddhism expands somewhat on Blanchard's high level view of what nama-rupa is in Chapter 7, Experience, going into quite a bit of detail about how nama-rupa and vinnana relate. Batchelor takes up the use of nama-rupa in the twelve nidanas, specifically the relationship between consciousness and nama-rupa, with this quote from SN 12:2:
Touch, feeling, perception, intention, attention: this is nama (name). The four great elements and forms derived from those elements: this is rupa (form). So name and form together are namarupa.
Batchelor notes that during the Buddha's time, the four great elements were not as later described, but rather were taken phenomenologically, in other words, what we sense of our environment through our embodied experience. He also states that while many translators translate namarupa as "name and form", there is no "and" in the original Pali. This has led to the misunderstanding that namarupa means "mind and body", but the Pali word for "mind" is citta, which consciousness is a synonmyn of, though the suttas also use the term vinnana for consciousness. This mistaken understanding comes clearly out of the Western tradition of Descartes and is not there in the original text.
Batchelor goes on to discuss how the Buddha saw consciousness arising, as an emergent property rather than being unconditioned. He cites this paragraph from DN 16:
Then bikkhus, it occured to me: 'By what is consciousness conditioned?' Though embodied attention, there occured for me a breakthrough in understanding: 'When there is name-form, consciousness comes to be; consciousness has name-form as its condition. When consciousness turns back, it goes back no further than name-form.'
He goes on to say that the mutually interdependent relationship can be seen as a result of the two factors playing a particular role. Name-form is needed to generate a unified consciousness, while consciousness is needed to bring name-form into focus. "Embodied attention" (manasikara) is the fifth nama factor. What this is according to Batchelor is "activity in the mind", in other words, contact with the environment triggers a particular perception, causes experience to feel a certain way, inclines us to adopt a particular stance toward it, and causes the direction of attention toward it. This is manasikara.
Anyway, as Nicky points out further down in this thread, there's also a lot of aprophycal Brahministic material in the suttas that one could cite and which is used by many to reinforce the three lifetimes interpretation, but there are a number of people, with Blanchard and Batchelor among them, who have drilled down into the original Pali and used particular textual analysis to extract out of the suttas what are more likely to be original.
svmonk:
At a high level, Blanchard's definition of nama-rupa is "identification".
Blanchard uses the analogy of a field to frame the twelve nidanas. The way we identify things and identify with things, i.e. how we direct our attention to sort out what is happening in our world which she defines as nama-rupa, are the field in which habits grow. The habits are driven by "drives", but not just any drives. Specifically, the problematic drives that lead to defining the self as a kind of interior thing separate and distinct and seemingly unchanging she identifies with sankara, the immediately preceeding link. So nama-rupa becomes the way we feed these drives, i.e. the drives are the cause and nama-rupa is the effect, by directing attention in a particular way. Hence the causal chain.
Identification is 'birth' rather than namarupa. Identification occurs after craving & becoming and not before, To quote:
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One." MN 44
In-born drives and conditioned habits are part of ignorance. To quote:
With the arising of the taints (outflows) there is the arising of ignorance. There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of becoming and the taint of ignorance. MN 9
What flows out is the tendency towards becoming or 'selfing' rather than a concrete identity. To quote:
Monks, there are these seven underlying tendencies. Which seven? "(1) The underlying tendency of sensual passion."(2) The underlying tendencyof resistance."(3) The underlying tendency of views."(4) The underlying tendency of uncertainty."(5) The underlying tendency of conceit."(6) The underlying tendency of passion for becoming."(7) The underlying tendency of ignorance.
AN 7.11
To quote again:
If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-underlying tendency gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-underlying tendency gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-underlying tendency gets obsessed. MN 148
The sankhara are the breathing in & out, initial & sustainted thought & perception & feeling. To quote:
There are these three fabrications: bodily fabrication, verbal fabrication, mental fabrication. These are called fabrication. MN 9
"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?""In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." MN 44
"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?""In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." MN 44
It is Linda rather than Buddha that is tangled up in Vedic-Brahminism at nama-rupa. The Buddha has defined nama as feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention.
If the self-identity is arising at nama-rupa due to sankhara then what is left to happen after craving? If the main problem occured before cravng, why did the Buddha teach it is craving to be eradicated? If major problems are occuring at nama-rupa, why did the Buddha so often only explain Dependent Origination starting from contact?
svmonk:
Hi Nicky,
It seems we have many fundamental disagreements about the twelve nidanas, so many in fact that it is unlikely that we will be able to come to any agreement by further discussion.
Good luck with your meditation thread!
jak
It seems we have many fundamental disagreements about the twelve nidanas, so many in fact that it is unlikely that we will be able to come to any agreement by further discussion.
Good luck with your meditation thread!
jak
Yes. Linda, Batchelor & you have many fundamental disagreements with the scriptures.
Good luck with the intellectual gymnastics & the secular cult.
As for the meditation thread, it would be good luck if you deleted the non-meditative (discursive) post.
Thanks. With metta