Best Namarupa translation

Q & A
101

Yup! :slight_smile:

That’s why I said from the start that vinnana has different meanings in different context. I’m not even sure why we’re arguing about it, to be frank. :face_with_hand_over_mouth: The Digital Pali Dictionary for example lists ‘consciousness’ but also ‘mind’. Also ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’, because it does sometimes mean wisdom instead of just awareness. The PTS dictionary starts off saying: “a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life-force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next. (See also below, c & d). In this (fundamental) application it may be characterized as the sensory and perceptive activity commonly expressed by “mind.” It is difficult to give any one word for v., because there is much difference between the old Buddhist and our modern points of view, and there is a varying use of the term in the Canon itself.”

No, it’s defined as the six types of consciousness, which is exactly how the aggregate of consciousness is defined as well. Elsewhere it is also said that sankharas create the aggregate of consciousness. (Sorry for not having the references handy.) They don’t just create a specific kind of consciousness; they created all consciousness through rebirth.

Indeed.

MN140 itself explains it: “The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. […] For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die?” In other words, they won’t die again because they aren’t reborn again. But they’ll still have to die one last time. To say that they won’t die is an evocative way of speech, clearly not meant to be taken literal. Even the Buddha said about himself that he still had to die. And so he did. But after that he didn’t die again.

They are related indeed. And they are synonymous.

I haven’t particularly looked at this case, but the Visuddhimagga (and commentaries in general) are full of wrong etymologies, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was one. They often are not meant to be taken seriously but make a point of dhamma instead. For example, the Visuddhimagga suggets bhikkhu comes from bhayam ikkhati (he sees fear) instead of just the verb bhikkhati (he begs). This is clearly not right but it does teach us something.

102

MN 9 seems to be the most comprehensive sutta. It says:

There are these six classes of consciousness. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind consciousness. Consciousness originates from choices. Consciousness ceases when choices cease.

Where did the Buddha say this? Thank you. I only recall the following but not the word “marana” used:

Did I not prepare for this when I explained that
Nanu etaṁ, ānanda, mayā paṭikacceva akkhātaṁ:

we must be parted and separated from all we hold dear and beloved?
‘sabbeheva piyehi manāpehi nānābhāvo vinābhāvo aññathābhāvo.

How could it possibly be so that what is born, created, conditioned, and liable to wear out should not wear out?

Taṁ kutettha, ānanda, labbhā, yaṁ taṁ jātaṁ bhūtaṁ saṅkhataṁ palokadhammaṁ, taṁ vata mā palujjīti netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati’.

DN 16

Here, MN 140 seems to use the Pali ‘jāyati’. When I search for this word, the first two suttas I find say:

Desire comes up for things that stimulate desire and greed in the past, future, or present.

Atīte, bhikkhave, chandarāgaṭṭhāniye dhamme ārabbha chando jāyati;
anāgate, bhikkhave, chandarāgaṭṭhāniye dhamme ārabbha chando jāyati; paccuppanne, bhikkhave, chandarāgaṭṭhāniye dhamme ārabbha chando jāyati

AN 3.112

“Mendicants, these four things are born of love and hate.

“Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, pemāni jāyanti.

What four?

Katamāni cattāri?

  1. Love is born of love, Pemā pemaṁ jāyati,
  2. hate is born of love, pemā doso jāyati,
  3. love is born of hate, anddosā pemaṁ jāyati,
  4. hate is born of hate. dosā doso jāyati.

AN 4.200

MN 140 says:

Having gone beyond all identification, one is called a sage at peace.

Sabbamaññitānaṁ tveva, bhikkhu, samatikkamā muni santoti vuccati.

The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn.

Muni kho pana, bhikkhu, santo na jāyati, na jīyati, na mīyati, na kuppati, na piheti.

For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn?

Based on the manner jāyati is used in AN 4.200 & AN 3.112, I am not sure we can conclude conclusively MN 140 is not referring to “identification” (“maññitānaṁ”) “not being reborn” (“santo na jāyati”). I guess it is a matter of personal interpretation & faith. Per MN 22, I personally wouldn’t argue about the matter. :slightly_smiling_face:

103

I’d love to see reference for this :smiling_face:

1 Like
104

Hi freedom,

I wanted to post a rather extensive reply in this topic, but I read your reply and realized that yours explains a lot already. The buddha used the word namarupa, which means name-and-form. He didn’t use the words mind-body or mentality-materiality. Name-and-form has a totally different meaning than mind-body or mentality-materiality. Name-and-form would make DO about identifying or conceiving the aggregrates as self, through clinging out of ignorance. I.e. The physical process of a body coming out of a womb is identified as birth. This conceiving/ identifying is explained in many suttas. Such an understanding would result in an attempt to stop discriminating sense-input, as is explained in Ud 1.10.

Whereas interpreting namarupa as mind-body, or mentality-materiality, would make DO about a physical birth as such. Such an interpretation has major implications; life in its entirety would be seen as suffering, from which death would be the only release. Nowhere is such an interpretation explained in the suttas. Such an interpretation would make people want to turn away from the experience of life, and focus on sense-restraint, in an attempt to reduce the creation of self, because it is to be believed to come from sense-contact.

In the first case, one follows the teaching in the suttas. In the latter, one follows the explanation of commentaries, translations from translators taking it up themselves to put a translation in a context which they have understood the buddhadhamma to be, or some other self-proclaimed teachers. In the first case, one understands that birth, or rebirth, is merely a results of the mind appropriating the aggregrates to be self. So when the first is understood, birth, or rebirth, is let go of. Whereas in the latter, one starts to believe in rebirth.

Warm regards,
Peter

105

I did not read all the comments here, but as someone has indicated above, working out the exact meaning of name & form is more important than finding the best translation of it. Regarding this, the (lesser known) sutta, ‘Kālakārāma-sutta’ can be very helpful (see link: https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp405s_Nyanananda_Magic-of-the-Mind.pdf ). Here, it is explained that the Buddha ‘does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a ‘thing-worth-seeing’; he does not conceive about a seer.’ - this analysis is repeated in that sutta for the other sensory experiences including the mind. Also, the following link by Venerable Katukurunde Nanananda can be helpful to understand nama-rupa at a deep level: https://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-Law-of-Dependent-Arising_LE_Rev_1.0.pdf

1 Like
106

I am not a translator or expert but I also see that it is not easy to translate namarupa. It will depend on how we understand its meaning. If we translate it to name-and-form or mentality-materiality, we will need to explain what does that mean? Somebody may understand name-and-form as a “being” without consciousness and the six-senses. Therefore, this is a fetus in its early stage. With this understanding, they accept the 3 lives model for DO and may take consciousness as rebirth consciousness that enters the womb. So, they think DO is about the rebirth process. However, by this understanding, they conveniently ignore the definition of nama and rupa in DO, and cannot explain the reversal process of DO.

Someone else may take namarupa as mentality-materiality. With this understanding, they may choose moment-to-moment interpretation and that all 12 links are realized in one and the same moment, or running uninterruptedly from ignorance to aging-and-death for each experience. However, with this understanding, they may accept that whenever we experience anything, feelings will arise so we must crave, cling to it.

Since I do not see DO can go straight from ignorance to aging-and-death in one shot; therefore, I also do not accept moment-to-moment interpretation. Here is what I explained about how I understand DO. I can see nama must have intention; therefore, it is not all mentalities and it does not have consciousness in its definitions, so we cannot simply call it “mind or mentalities”. Rupa can be internal or external, so it is not simply the body of the experiencer. Rupa is defined as the four great elements so it is physical, and it is also defined as the forms derived from them, so it can also be mental images. To my understanding, namarupa is the intentional mental connection of the being towards the rupa that he is interested in. In short, namarupa is the intentional connection between nama and rupa. This connection is intentional and it is driven by ignorance. Since this intentional connection is mental even if rupa may not be so, it can cease when ignorance ceases. With wisdom, we never have any intention to pursue rupa and stay with it. We can experience the rupa, but not because we like it or do not like it, so we will not have any intention to chase after it or to be with it; therefore, there is no namarupa for a person with wisdom.

Without namarupa does not mean that we are no longer able to experience anything. We can still experience the world, but without any intention to be or not to be with it.

I do not see DO as the refusal or acceptance of self or soul. However, this also depends on how we understand what we mean by “self or soul”? To me, self or soul is simply what refers to “I, me” no matter if it is permanent or not. Seeing dependent origination, I cannot say that I do not exist. However, seeing the cessation I also cannot say that I exist. It is weird to say that the perception or feeling that I just experienced is separated from me and is not related to me. If I do not exist, why do I experience that? However, seeing the cessation, it is also weird to say that the perception or feeling that I just experienced is my perception or feeling. If it is mine, why can’t I control and keep it? Therefore, as I see, DO is simply about how we get ourselves into suffering, and how we can get out of it.

Since I do not accept or reject self or soul, to me, it is what it is. I am not it, but I am also not apart from it. It comes and it goes away. By not clinging to or rejecting it, I can experience the world without identifying with it. Without any identification, how can you identify or describe me?

That’s how I understand namarupa and DO. Hope that someone may understand what I have tried to address.

107

Hi Freedom,

I agree with what you have written. I will add a bit to what you have left open.

Name is just name. Another word for name is concept; the giving of name. So the giving of name to form, creates the conscious experience of that what is discerned and given name. See SN 12.67 and DN 15. Form is any form, as you already mentioned, and includes form derived from the elements, therefore form also includes thoughts and mental images. So a thought is a form, and the naming of that thought as “thought”, is name. Without identifying, there is no arising of namarupa. Without arising of namarupa, there is no arising of suffering.

Great to see someone else with wisdom here! All the best to you.

Warm regards,
Peter

108

Rupa (material form) is external objects (i.e. visible forms, sounds, smells, testes, tangibles) and nama (name) is mental objects (according to SA 294 = SN12.19; see p. 187 in Choong Mun-keat’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).

109

Hi thomaslaw,

Apparently not, because the sutta talks about external name-and-form. Also, for the wise man, the ignorance and craving from which the body originated has been utterly destroyed. So if namarupa were to mean mind-body, there would be no wise man. Also, the sutta talks about the sense bases, and not the six senses as such. The six sense bases are based upon namarupa (name-and-form).

Through seeing (form) sight (name) is conceived,
through hearing…,
through thinking (form) thought (name) is conceived.

Based upon this conceiving (duality), there is a body that experiences sight (contact). If one conceives of a body as having sight, one is with sight; if one is with sight, one will be in sight; if one is in sight, one will be here or hereafter or in between the two. Ud 1.10.

Warm regards,
Peter

PS., it is also interesting to note that Sujato translates namarupa to name-and-form in SN 12.19, whereas in all other translations from him that I have read, he translates namarupa as mentality-materiality.

110

This sounds like the external minds & bodies of others; externally.

The 1st translation of “body” above is from the Pali “kaya”. The 2nd translation of “body” above is from “rupa”. What is subject to or has “gone to arising” (“kāyo samudāgato”) is the “kaya” and not the “rupa”. The meaning of “kāyo samudāgato” seems explained in SN 22.5:

And what is the origin of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?

Ko ca, bhikkhave, rūpassa samudayo, ko vedanāya samudayo, ko saññāya samudayo, ko saṅkhārānaṁ samudayo, ko viññāṇassa samudayo?

It’s when a mendicant approves, welcomes and keeps clinging.

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.

SN 22.5

“Kaya” can refer to the “group” of five aggregates, for example:

The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.”

Ime kho, āvuso visākha, pañcupādānakkhandhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā”ti.

MN 44

111

How about if you also consider to compare the Pali sutta with the Chinese version, SA 294 (= SN12.19)?

Cf. the following comparative study of the texts (SA 294 and SN 12.19), pp. 184-188:

112

I don’t see a reason to do so. I don’t know if you understood what I have written in previous posts, but I will try to explain it in even easier terms. All the suttas that talk about liberation, explain that liberation is about not appropriating/ identifying/ conceiving the aggregrates as self. This liberation can be experienced in the here-and-now. The only way to get to that liberation is through understanding namarupa as name-and-form, i.e. a duality is created by trying to identify sense experience.

If one understands name-and-form to be mentality-materiality, there is no liberation possible in the here-and-now. The aggregates themselves would be seen as suffering. Life itself would be seen as suffering, from which death is the only release.

So besides that there are no suttas that point to such an interpretation of DO, even if the suttas were pointing to such an interpretation, this would not be worthwhile to follow IMHO.

113

Yes.

Why? All the suttas that talk about liberation, explain that liberation is about not appropriating/ identifying/ conceiving the aggregates as self.

114

Because, in such a case, when ignorance gets dissolved, mentality-materiality would dissolve, hence there would be no experience left.

115

I think this is a very good way to understand namarupa using the six senses.

SA298 defines namarupa as form, feeling, perception, activities, consciousness while SN12 .2 defines it as form, feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention. I think the reason SA298 defines namarupa that way is because the author or translator may think namarupa should be a being while we do not find that in SN12. 2. Since I do not see namarupa as a fetus or a being, I choose the definition in SN12. 2. because if namarupa is a being then external namarupa must be an external being and it will conflict with SN12. 19.

From SN12.19, we have:

“this body and external name and form. Contact depends on this duality.”

The body and the external namarupa are the duality that causes the arising of contact. The body here works with the external namarupa for contact to arise, so we can say that this is the physical body that provides the physical senses for the operation. We also know that:

In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact.

So, this external namarupa is the object of the six sense bases. Therefore, they are external form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactile objects, mental phenomena.

Since we have an external namarupa, we can infer that there is non-external namarupa. Otherwise, the “external” is meaningless. Let’s assume that the internal namarupa is the reflection of the external namarupa in our mind. If this is the case, we can say that the internal namarupa is the internal form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactile objects, mental phenomena in our mind. This internal namarupa could be the namarupa in DO. In fact, what we are experiencing is actually the reflection of the external objects out there. We do not directly see the object. We actually see the reflection of the object in our mind.

To map this internal namarupa with its definition in DO, we can take nama (feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention) as internal mental phenomena, and rupa (earth, water, fire, air and the form derived from them) as internal form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactile objects. This internal rupa is the reflection of the external rupa in our mind, so it is also mental.

However, nama in DO must have intention; therefore, namarupa in DO should be the intentional reflection of the external namarupa. This intention is driven by ignorance; therefore, the namarupa in DO is not simply the reflection of the external namarupa, but it is the intentional reflection of the external namarupa. This is important because we can also have the reflection of external namarupa without intention. In this case, this reflection is not namarupa of DO. The cessation of namarupa in DO is the cessation of the intentional reflection of external namarupa, not the unintentional reflection. This shows that we can still experience the world even if the namarupa in DO ceased.

My previous understanding of namarupa in DO is quite close to this, but it is not very clear. I was thinking namarupa is the connection between nama and rupa or between the mind and its objects. The connection obviously must be done through the six senses, and that is this reflection of the external namarupa. We can also see this connection in SN12.19 as the contact that depends on the body and the external namarupa.

I think this reflection of external namarupa in DO does not happen all at once for all the senses, but it is gradual filling as I previously explained in my example

This filling will trigger the arising of all the appropriate senses for the experience, and they will eventually be reflected in the mind. Therefore, in DO we can see the six senses after namarupa. These six senses in DO are the type of the reflection of the external namarupa. Therefore, they are not the physical six sense bases. They arise depending on the intentional reflection of appropriate types of external namarupa. Without that, they will not arise.

To me, I think this is another very good way to understand namarupa. Without understanding namarupa, we will not be able to understand DO.

My understanding is limited, so I may have some mistakes that I cannot see. Feel free to validate my understanding. I am happy to correct them. Of course, this is just my own limited view.

116

No. I never referred to any “duality”. Instead, I quoted the definition of namarupa from SN 12.2; where it seems to refer to a mind & body polluted by ignorance.

Goodbye. :slightly_smiling_face:

117

Basically what you’re saying means that mentality-materiality in DO doesn’t refer to that what constitutes a human being as a whole, but that it refers to a duality arisen out of ignorance. Which is what I explained, but in different words. For how could an Arahant be if he isn’t born? :wink:

Sure an Arahant has feelings, but an arahant wouldn’t be grasping the feeling, and if one is not grasping a feeling, there is no feeling to be called “feeling”. :wink:

If you still have doubt, I can recommend studying MN 140.

This is my last message in this discourse, as I have said everything that is needed to be said. All the best to you, goodbye.

118

PS. If you keep editing your messages to the point where you completely delete your original message, and replace it with a response to a response upon your original message, you’re not only disturbing the discourse, but you’re also deceiving others and yourself. Unless you refrain from these post-reply changes, I will not engage in future discussions with you.

PPS. Maybe you can explain to those who are interested, what this mind-body polluted by ignorance might be, if there is a mind-body not polluted by ignorance, without referring to a duality.

119

Incorrect, according to the four noble truths.

120

Good to read your explanations regarding the connection between namarupa and the six senses.