Duality: Mind & Matter?

[anon29387788]

@Sujith

I didn’t find the answer in that long thread

It is a long thread! Here are a few quotes from it:

@sujato

the strictly Abhidhamma interpretation of nāmarūpa as “mind and body,” which is not found in the suttas at all.

@sujato

when a single one of the khandhas is isolated in contast with the others, it is viññāṇa, not rūpa.

From this and from later discussions in this thread, I started to question whether, in most contexts, we should be separating nama from rupa at all? I now believe we shouldn’t, that it ought to be treated like a compound word.

And then later…

@sujato

But the basic problem is that the Abhidhamma treats the nāma as “mind”, which it never means in the suttas, and then rūpa becomes “body”, which it sometimes means in the suttas, but not here. (Rūpa is broader than “body”, as it includes the objects of the five sense, and even the objects of the sixth sense that have material properties such as color and position).

…I think perhaps Bhante is referring to those instances in the suttas where Rupa is treated alone, and not as part of the compound word, Namarupa.

@Brahmali

Also, although nāmarūpa in viññāṇa paccaya nāmarūpa may not be equivalent to the four non-consciousness khandhas, I would suggest that the conditioned nature of the four khandhas is implied.

From this quote it seems the compound word “namarupa” is almost synonymous with “the four non-consciousness khandas” of perception, formations, body and feeling. So it’s not referring to some kind of dualistic split. It’s referring to everything in our experience that isn’t consciousness. That’s partly why I’m viewing it as a compound word; the other reason is to be found, if anyone has the monumental patience required to take a look, at the questions I posed in that thread and the answers Bhante gives.

@sujato

In this sense, yes, I agree completely. The khandha are far more amenable to rational discourse, and much easier to unpack. I think, in fact, that it was precisely because nāma is so tightly embedded in the Brahmanical/Upanishadic context that the Abhidhammikas felt the need to give it a more independent and absolutist meaning. So if it’s a matter of explaining the Dhamma, using the khandhas is much better. That doesn’t help us translators, though!

Well…I hope this helps…

@Brahmali and @Sujato, my sincere apologies if I’ve misunderstood what you were both trying to say or taken what you’ve said so out of context that I’ve gotten it all wrong…which is highly likely! I would say to anyone reading this that it’s worth taking a closer look at parts of the thread that I’m quoting from…then you don’t have to rely on any misunderstandings that I may be presenting here because of course, I don’t really understand this stuff fully…not anywhere near it!!