Name and Form-the Chicken or the Egg

The Watercooler
1

"Where do name and form come from? They come from consciousness, for consciousness is like the seed that produces the sprout of name and form.
However, sometimes consciousness grows from name and form, and
other times name and form grow from consciousness.

In the sameway that one can ride a raft on a river to move forward, while one
must drag a raft across land to proceed, at times consciousness may
give rise to name and form and at others name and form may give
rise to consciousness as both go onward together"

Friends, I found this description of name and form from “The Autobiography of the Buddha” by Master Hsing Yun. It seems rather contradictory to my primitive thinking. Can it be both ways? How does form give rise to consciousness?
Thanks in advance

1 Like
2

Just guessing, but maybe the author is talking about a co-dependency? Kind of like good or bad can only be posited in relation to the other? In this construction, consciousness and name and form would be considered co-dependent like two sticks balancing against each other?

I’d also not assume a literal reading here to necessarily refer to a physical process? I’m not sure the author had in mind to describe a physical process by which matter gives rise to consciousness. It seems that this may be an unnecessary embellishment and that maybe it can be understood without such embellishment? Hope this helps.

:pray:

1 Like
3

DN15

…
When asked, ‘Is there a specific condition for contact?’ you should answer, ‘There is.’ If they say, ‘What is a condition for contact?’ you should answer, ‘Name and form are conditions for contact.’
When asked, ‘Is there a specific condition for name and form?’ you should answer, ‘There is.’ If they say, ‘What is a condition for name and form?’ you should answer, ‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form.’
When asked, ‘Is there a specific condition for consciousness?’ you should answer, ‘There is.’ If they say, ‘What is a condition for consciousness?’ you should answer, ‘Name and form are conditions for consciousness.’
So: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for contact.
…

2 Likes
4

This is very good. It reminds me very much of Kant’s theory of knowledge.

The idea is that our minds and senses play a part in how reality appears to us. What is real to us is their “translation” of a reality otherwise unknown to us into objects (“form”) and categories/terms (“names”). Some of our knowledge is certain (empirical knowledge) while some conclusions derived from it that cannot be checked empirically themselves are illusions, altough they seem to logically follow.

So there can not be a (human) conciousness that would not consist of names and forms, and these names and forms can only exist as part of human conciousness.

Or maybe I really should eat after 12 and these are just the hungry phantasies of a philosophy dropout :upside_down_face:

1 Like
5

Through contact (phassa).

Eye consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇaṁ) arises (uppajjati) in the eye dependent on sights (cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe). The meeting of the three is contact (tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso). SN 35.60

Feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), intentionality (cetanā), contact (phasso) and attention (manasikāro) - this is called name (nāmaṁ).

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— these things are mixed, not separate. ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them. Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetuṁ.
For you perceive what you feel, and you are aware of what you perceive. Yaṁ hāvuso, vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. Tasmā ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them.” Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetun”ti. MN 43

6

Hi Rosie,
I have explained this very clearly in my writing on Dependent Origination. If you are interested, here is the link.
Dependent Origination-Another Perspective - Essays - Discuss & Discover (suttacentral.net)

Just for context, as Soren has quoted from DN15, consciousness and name & form and name & form and consciousness are reciprocally connected. Many misunderstandings about DO has arisen due to not-understanding this concept.
With Metta

1 Like
7

Namo Buddhaya!

Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. Nalakalapiyo Sutta: Sheaves of Reeds

3 Likes
8

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, “co-arising” (I understand that’s a proper translation of paticca samuppadha ) fits well to the interaction of selected perceptions (the ongoing interplay of how we sense what’s out there) and consciousness (the precursor to actions that will cycle back into the environment).

So “chickens” and “eggs,” - being subject to the same forces of natural selection - make for a very appropriate analogy.

Edit: I’ve also seen “codependent” used. (Although it may or may not be helpful to bring in the language of addiction). I was intent to emphasize the “co.”

9

Thank you for citing this! I had a hazy recollection of something like this, but my very miserable memory could not recall. :pray:

10

Thanks for the links. I will read them. Metta in return!

11

I may be too dense to Grok. I don’t understand how something…anything may arise without consciousness proceeding name and form. But I shall persevere. Thanks Y’all!

12

Do you mean precede here? In other words, are you saying “I don’t understand how something…anything may arise without consciousness preceding name and form.” Are you saying you don’t understand how consciousness does not come first temporally?

:pray:

13

Dear Yeshe…YES!
and

YES!
I also am persistently amazed at the origins of the plethora of uninvited thoughts thatt assail my feeble mind whileduring meditation. From whence do these thoughts arise?

Thank you for your offer of help. I live an isolated life without the assitance of a sangha, or anyone around who knows or cares about the Buddha.
Feel free to fill in my blanks. I appreciate you.
Metta

14

I’m sorry, but I’m no teacher. What little understanding I have comes only from the kindness of my teachers persistently helping knowledge get past my thick skull. There are some online sangha that might be helpful to you. This is a sangha community I would enthusiastically recommmend: https://sravastiabbey.org/events/ to anyone who lives in an isolated place. They do a great job of providing dhamma teachings online complete with Zoom so you can actually ask questions and get feedback. I hope this is helpful :pray:

1 Like
15

Thank you! Yes, of course I will check it out!

16

I think it is a case of name and form being logically equivalent to one another. In other words, each implies the other. That or both are necessary and sufficient conditions for the other.

I believe that somewhere it says consciousness is differentiated awareness and I believe that name and form is another way of saying differentiated awareness. if so, then it is a case of logical equivalency.

Any thoughts on this? I have had the same question myself.

1 Like
17

As for my theory, it would be helpful to know whether the master had a known background or interest in epistemology and/or Kantian philosophy. If not, then one should probably look at the master’s previous interpetations of the underlying Buddhist concepts. I understand he was quite a giant.

18

Namo Buddhaya!

One should study how these terms are defined as to their conjoinment and co-occurence.

In short

Name is defined as contact, feeling, perception, intention, attention

Therein intention is a word for kamma (action) and sankhara (formation) refer to the creation and things willed & created

Attention s that through which the cognized comes into play.

If there was no contact there would be no feeling.

Feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, attention, these are conjoined for what one feels that one perceives and so on.

Four aggregates are conjoined. That which is called name is always associated with consciousness.

Form refers to the four great elements and form derived from the great elements.

Form is not conjoined with consciousness, it is sometimes generated and sometimes not generated (eg formless perception attainments), but in as far as there is form it is thought of like this

“Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is the middle.
SuttaCentral

one can think about this whole complex as the constructed changing as it persists.

As to contact one would think

“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle.

Meaning that contact doesn’t persist as the same thing through time as the constructed changes as it persists.

Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed (1)

From all this it follows that it is not the same name & form that persists, that in as far as it persist it is associated with consciousness, and that it is not the same consciousness that persists through time.

Just as it is always ‘now’ for you, yet it is not the same ‘now’ persisting through time.

The now that was in the past has ceased, the term was applies to it.
The now that will be in the future is not begoten, the term ‘will be’ applies to it.
The now that is present changes as it persists.

The now doesn’t arise, persist and cease as one and the same thing.

Consciousness & namarupa are thought of in the same way

When form has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

When feeling …

perception …

sankhara …

consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.

When feeling …

perception …

sankhara …

consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.

When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.

When feeling …

perception …

sankhara …

consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.

These are the three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. SuttaCentral