Incorrect, please see MN 140; the internal-external distinction is irrelevant. The only relevant thing to realize is that a duality arises when form is perceived as nama. This perceiving is the duality through which a body perceives sound. Whether kaya refers to a physical body, or body of aggregates, is also irrelevant for this understanding. Whether form is called “sound waves”, “hearing”, or “heard” is also irrelevant. The only important thing to realize is that the corresponding nama is “sound”; that what is perceived. This applies to all the six sense bases. Hence the suttas about DO talk about “bases” and not the senses as such, because based upon the aformentioned duality, the six sense bases arise. So the illusion of the self is created by the conceiving that one heard a sound. Instead one needs to let the heard be the heard. The teaching of the Buddha is profoundly simple.
Edit; please note that in previous posts I used the term “conceived” where I had better used the term “perceived”.
I may not fully understand what you mean, but it seems to me that you are talking about the perception in nama. Nama in DO is defined as feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention. Therefore, it has more than just perception. The external namarupa and the body (or the six senses) in SN12.19 is the duality that means they are a pair, duplicity or the other-side of each other. If so, they are reflecting each other. Of course, the reflection can be influenced by other factors such as ignorance that gives nama in DO extra factors such as intention, attention.
I am also not sure what you mean “form is perceived as nama?” I think you may mean form is mentally perceived, because I could understand you mean that form is perceived as “feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention” which does not make very much sense to me.
It seems to me that you are concerned about the illusion of self that creates from the experience. Of course, the self comes and goes. It is what it is. However, this is not what we are talking about here. We are exploring what external namarupa is and its relationship to the namarupa in DO.
You don’t understand what I mean, because you don’t really investigate what I have written. My post was specifically tailored to what you are exploring in your previous post. I cannot help you further. All the best to you. Goodbye.
No. They are dependently arisen in or through contact, which conditions consciousness. It is highly likely that I would translate phassa as media, drawing upon Zielinski’s concept of it as something that closes, or conjoins, a gap: “Media are spaces of action for constructed attempts to connect what is separated.”
