SN12.2 presents analyzability as the criterion for each nidāna with nāmarūpa being the only exception. This paves the way for further analysis of each component. Take MN140 as an example:
“What, bhikkhu, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.
The above has little to do with the swelling of sexual organs or with salivation. Ideally, it has to do with faith that the teachings are well explained (svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo) by the Tathāgata, which makes it having little to do with Hinduism (āloko udapādi - unlearned from another). In MN77, it is demonstrated that rūpa can be without nāma against your assertion:
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to create from this body another body—formed, mind-made, whole in its major and minor limbs, not deficient in any faculty.
Puna caparaṁ, udāyi, akkhātā mayā sāvakānaṁ paṭipadā, yathāpaṭipannā me sāvakā imamhā kāyā aññaṁ kāyaṁ abhinimminanti rūpiṁ manomayaṁ sabbaṅgapaccaṅgiṁ ahīnindriyaṁ.
Suppose a person was to draw a reed out from its sheath.
Seyyathāpi, udāyi, puriso muñjamhā īsikaṁ pabbāheyya;
They’d think:
tassa evamassa:
‘This is the reed, this is the sheath. The reed and the sheath are different things. The reed has been drawn out from the sheath.’
‘ayaṁ muñjo, ayaṁ īsikā; añño muñjo, aññā īsikā; muñjamhā tveva īsikā pabbāḷhā’ti.
To acknowledge that nāmarūpa can be presented as two nidānas rather than one would allow for proper investigation as to why the Buddha taught it as such instead of being compelled to do so, considering that paṭiccasamuppāda is a wrong path, beginning with avijjā and ending in jarāmaraṇaṁ, so what harm would it make to demonstrate it as 13 links instead of 12?
Again, in MN77 we read:
Furthermore, my disciples esteem me for my excellent knowledge and vision:
Puna caparaṁ, udāyi, mamaṁ sāvakā abhikkante ñāṇadassane sambhāventi:
‘The ascetic Gotama only claims to know when he does in fact know.
jānaṁyevāha samaṇo gotamo—jānāmīti,
He only claims to see when he really does see.
passaṁyevāha samaṇo gotamo—passāmīti;
He teaches based on direct knowledge, not without direct knowledge.
abhiññāya samaṇo gotamo dhammaṁ deseti no anabhiññāya;
He teaches based on reason, not without reason.
sanidānaṁ samaṇo gotamo dhammaṁ deseti no anidānaṁ;
He teaches with a demonstrable basis, not without it.’
sappāṭihāriyaṁ samaṇo gotamo dhammaṁ deseti no appāṭihāriyan’ti.
Do you still think that the swelling of sexual organs and salivating for food are his reasons to proclaim nāmarūpa as one nidāna rather than two?
