Name&Form vs Five Aggregates

What’s the difference between consciousness along with name&form and the Five Aggregates?

EDIT: Specifically I’m asking whether cetanā and manasikara can be equated to the sankharupadanakkhanda. If yes, then what about phassa?

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

The source of the quote is the SN12.2 :anjal:

IMO those dhammas more likely to be considered the Self should be included under Sankhara, as the five aggregates were those dhammas most likely to be considered self. This would include manasikara and intentions.

Phassa (external sounds, sight, sensations, smells, etc) wont be considered self, though thoughts at the mind-base poses a problem, but, that is then manasikara!

with metta

Fyi, in the Chinese Agamas (eg. MA 29 [parallel of MN 9]), name is defined as the four incorporeal aggregates (feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness aggregate).

My view is the ‘phassa’ here only refers to certain kinds of internal contact (passa) related to meditation, such as mind-passa or body-passa. In other words, these passa are related to the passa (contact) with the sankhara (kaya, vaci & citta sankhara) of the 2nd nidana or contact with the ignorance & asava of the 1st nidana.


1 Like

This is how I understand it too.
Nama-rupa seems to be the basic building blocks of a being which cover any being. (animal,deva etc)
This is very similar to the universal mental faculties in Abhidhamma.

1 Like

.contact should be known.’ Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact… etc MN148

Contact is the mental representation of a material or mental event detected at a sense base. It is always internal. It could be said to be ‘external’ in the sense that it depicts an external event (a sight, a sound etc) which doesn’t often become labelled as Self (unlike my body, my feelings, I think therefore I am, freewill, my mother/father- labelling).

with metta

Possibly however this is not what I was referring to in my post. If ‘contact’ within ‘nama-rupa’ represented all contacts then why would contact be repeated at the 6th condition?

Yes. This is what I was referring to.

Thia is is a good point. But this is a pitfall of trying to analyse DO as a linear diagram. DO is a complex multidimensional phenomenon with many permutations and combinations,

Rupa here refers to the eye and the forms. These arise before contact, giving rise to contact.
Similarly for ‘thoughts’ at the mind base, giving rise to contact, consequentially.
So nama-rupa can arise separated in time from phassa.

The English term ‘contact’ suggests nothing can happen without it, and that it is the point of ‘contact’. But the pali term phassa also has the meaning felt. Consciousness (vinnana) has to arise for something to be properly ‘felt’.

The DO is partly an explanatory tool for the causation of Dukkha. In a realistic sense none of the 12 factors cannot exist without phassa. But for the sake of clarity the essential causative factors are depicted sequentially.

with metta