This is the basis of the delusion known in the commentaries as ‘ghana sanna’ where everything appears ‘fused’. This is a feature of ‘conventional’ reality. In the scheme of insight knowledge nama rupa paricceda gnana is the insight of delineation of name and form, where these things appear separately.
Very classy… How about answering questions posed to you and addressing the points raised.
My point is that you’re never going to understand the Abhidhamma in the sutta without being actually able to develop samadhi in a way that allows you to see the five aggregates arising and passing away. And this happens in a temporal sequence of causes and effects. After you see it, you can tell me what ‘conjoined’ means.
Oh i get the ad-hominem, it is easy to see your ‘point’.
Hardly… see this sutta. Note how the process leads to contact (passa) and then gives rise to the remaining phenomena:
Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present. And what does he discern as it actually is present?
"He discerns, as it actually is present, that ‘The eye is inconstant’… ‘Forms are inconstant’… ‘Eye-consciousness is inconstant’… ‘Eye-contact is inconstant’… ‘Whatever arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is inconstant.’
“He discerns, as it actually is present, that ‘The ear is inconstant’… ‘The nose is inconstant’… ‘The tongue is inconstant’… 'The body is inconstant”…
"He discerns, as it actually is present, that ‘The intellect is inconstant’… ‘Ideas are inconstant’… ‘Intellect-consciousness is inconstant’… ‘Intellect-contact is inconstant’… ‘Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is inconstant.’
“So develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present.” Samadhi Sutta: Concentration
It’s easy to think the factors arise, all together, but you can see at least that it’s possible to have a different understanding than that idea.
Sixth post above this one i answered the questions you posed and questioned you on your interpretation of DO. I am not interested in taking this discussion in a different direction, nor am i interested in bickering ala ‘You don’t understand this Dhamma bla bla’.
Therefore whenever you want to answer legitimately posed questions in regards to what has been said thus far, you can do so and i will participate in a further discussion but until you do we need not talk.