The words cannot be universally translated in one way because their meanings vary according to context. For example, dukkha means:
-
Dukkha vedana = unpleasant/painful feeling
-
Dukkha lakkhana = characteristic of unsatisfactoriness due to impermanence
-
Upadana (sankhara) dukkha = mental suffering of attachment (papanca)
I personally have no problems with it because I was taught from the beginning words such as ‘dukkha’, ‘dhamma’, ‘sankhara’, ‘nama-rupa’, ‘nirodha’, etc, have different meanings in different contexts. When a translation is illogical to me, I research to find the logical meaning. Since the Buddha declared his dhamma was plain & straightforward (MN 22), I personally believe suttas should read overtly, with no hidden or obscure meanings.
Imo, the Western translators such as BB and Thanissaro have rendered their many of their translations as inflexible by generally using the same translation for each context.
Since ‘nama’ is defined in some contexts (eg. SN 12.2) as ‘feeling. perception, intention, contact & attention’, it obviously means ‘mentality’ or ‘mind’; just as the ‘rupa’ comprised of earth, wind, fire & water (refer to MN 62) means the ‘physical body’ or ‘materiality’.
In other contexts, particularly when answering questions of non-Buddhist Brahmans (eg. SN 7.6; DN 11), ‘nama-rupa’ retains the Brahmanistic meaning of ‘naming-forms’ or ‘name-form’ (as it does in DN 15).
I personally have no issues with it, such as was discussed here by some of us, where we examined the suttas in context to find the appropriate meaning of the word ‘dhamma’.
Kind regards 