What is nāma rūpa and how does it relate to the 5 aggregates?

Regarding SA 298 I was getting my texts confused. However, upon re-reading some texts I’ve made a mistake in my earlier comments. I was treating the nāmarūpa of sense processing as a newer version and nāmarūpa as external object/individual beings as the old Upanishadic version. Looking into it further it seems that even from the earliest times nāmarūpa could be understood in both senses. In ṚV 7.103.6,16 nāman is used in the sense of “designation” or “name”, thus showing nāma here as being an individual identifier. In the Chāndogyopaniṣad passage I quoted here:

सेयं देवतैक्षत हन्ताहमिमास्तिस्रो देवता अनेन जीवेनात्मनानुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणीति ॥ ६.३.२ ॥

seyaṃ devataikṣata hantāhamimāstisro devatā anena jīvenātmanānupraviśya nāmarūpe vyākaravāṇīti || 6.3.2 ||

That god [Existence] decided: ‘Entering into these three deities [fire, water, and earth], as the individual self, I shall manifest myself in many names and forms’.

We see nāma with rūpa which stands for the phenomenal world of objects and beings. The manifest world of many names and forms/images. That being said, in BĀU 3.2. Yājñavalkya presents a list of the senses and their sense objects. At 3.2.3 vāc (speech) is classed as a sense with nāman as it’s object, whilst at 3.2.5 cakṣus (vision) is paired with rūpa as it’s object. Although not stated in a compound form, here we have nāmarūpa playing a role in sense experience. From the earliest times then nāmarūpa could mean individual beings/objects or it could play a role in sense processing. We see both in the suttas/agamas already mentioned. Regarding SN12.2/SA 298, with this in mind, it is entirely possible that the Sarvāstivādins were viewing it there in terms of “individual being” whilst the Theravādins were viewing it in terms of its role in sensing. Both are valid definitions of nāmarūpa, but it leaves open which is the correct definition in terms of the 12-link version of dependent origination? Given that nāmarūpa is found being defined without viññāṇa in both canons but nāmarūpa + viññāṇa is only found in some northern texts it’s possible that the northern version is a sectarian definition. That said, we do have a sutta with an āgama parallel which uses both versions of nāmarūpa (in terms of sensing and in terms of individual being) . This is DN 15, although it is noticeable that even there nāmarūpa is never defined with viññāṇa included. Instead we have a nāmarūpa which is the basis for contact through “designation & resistance contact”, thus showing it’s role in sensory processing, as well as the nāmarūpa which “grows up” thus strongly indicating the other conception of nāmarūpa as simply “name and form” or rather, “that individual”.

I interpret the pre-Buddhist passages of namarupa to mean ‘manifestation-with-its-true-name-and-appearance’, or shorter: ‘actual manifestation’. And this is also how I interpret this passage.

In the background is an idea of ‘name’ that is not a random interchangeable symbol as we see it today with the exposure to many languages. But closer to the true-name of a platonic idea, or as in Genesis 2:20 where God brought the beasts he created to Adam to see what he would name them. We find this concept of true-name also in Vedic literature as Olalde details.

So ‘name’ was more seen as the ‘vocalized aspect’ of manifestations, not a ‘name’ in our modern sense. So I would interpret the passage above as
"If consciousness were not conceived in the mother’s womb, would an actual manifestation take shape there?”

2 Likes

Thank you. You put it far better than I.

1 Like

Actually @Ceisiwr is right, nama doesn’t mean just mental aggregates it can mean names too

Obviously the english word “name” comes from nama/name/namehi if you look at noun declension of nama you can’t deny the pali influence

There are many english words that are influenced by pali/sanskrit this should not be a surprise to anyone because both pali and english are still indo european language they share many common words

Metta to you :pray::pray::heart:

1 Like

Thinking about this, doesn’t this imply that nāma then originally included attention? If there is a debate around if attention is part of or separate from consciousness, and some opted for part of and so included consciousness in nāma, this suggests to me that the original formulation originally had just attention (along with other mental dhammas). To include consciousness because you think it is the same as attention means it was already there as part of nāma, no? At the very least it shows that nāma had various mental states defined under it. Given that the Buddha would have been debating with Brahmins, doesn’t it make more sense to have consciousness separate from but reliant upon nāmarūpa? The Upanishads conceived of a consciousness that was separate from but not dependent upon nāmarūpa. The Buddha’s adoption of the concept was a great way of turning the teachings of the Upanishads on themselves. Yes there is consciousness separate from nāmarūpa, but consciousness cannot be without nāmarūpa. This naturally undercuts the whole project of Yājñavalkya et al. It seems this becomes harder to do if you include consciousness with nāma, and so would seem to hold little polemical value. The rishis could easily just say there is a consciousness behind that still. It also makes little sense to treat consciousness separately in the 12-links, only to have it again in nāma IMO. I’m open to hearing alternative view points though.

3 Likes

The debate I’m thinking of was about the relationship between citta and caittas, not just about attention. Citta and vijnana in the five skandhas are more-or-less synonyms, so it would carry over into the way the five skandhas were divided. So, in the Samyukta Agama, we see nama = the four mental skandhas and rupa = body/matter as @thomaslaw pointed out.

I’ve been working on too many things at once lately, causing me to not be able to keep track of where tidbits like this were found. I’m thinking it must have been in one of Dhammajoti’s books surveying northern Abhidharma doctrines. I’ll see if I can track it down.

Isn’t it just one agama which does that, and some Sanskrit fragments?

1 Like

MA 29 says the same thing as another example:

[0463c23] 答曰:「有也。尊者舍梨子!謂有比丘知名色如真,知名色習、知名色滅、知名色滅道如真。云何知名?謂四非色陰為名。云何知色?謂四大及四大造為色。

[The Buddha] replied: "There is. Sariputra, a monk truly knows nama-rupa and knows its formation, cessation, and the path to its cessation. What is known as nama? The four non-rupa skandhas are nama. What is known as rupa? The four elements and what’s made from the four elements is rupa.

However, the Ekottarika Agama 51.8 has something different:

[0797b27] 「云何名為名?所謂名者,痛、想、念、更樂、思惟,是為名。彼云何為色?所謂四大身及四大身所造色,是謂名為色。色異、名異、故曰名色。

What is called nama? Nama is feeling, perception, thought, contact, and contemplation(?). What’s called rupa? The body of four elements and forms made of the body of four elements. These are called rupa. Rupa and nama are different, so they are “nama-rupa.”

It’s interesting that EA often dovetails with Theravada readings like this, though I’m not sure what 念 and 思惟 were in the original Indic text; I translate them as “thought” and “contemplation” here.

One last edit: I couldn’t find a definition of nama-rupa in the Dirgha Agama, but there is one in the Sariputra Abhidharma (T1548), which is considered to be a Dharmaguptaka text. It looks to be the same as the passage in EA 51.8. (Hmm, maybe EA actually has some Dharmaguptaka sutras in it?)

Embedded in a discussion of specifics about how nama-rupa conditions vijnana in various ways (such as in the present life and past lives, etc), it says:

[608b18] 四大四大所造色是色。由意生受想思觸思惟謂名。

The four elements and forms made of the four elements are rupa. Feeling, perception, thought, contact, and contemplation (maniskara?) that arise from the mind (mana) are known as nama.

1 Like

Interesting. So nama without consciousness is found in all traditions from which we have texts, but the definition with consciousness is only found in a handful of Sarvāstivādin texts (and sk. fragments). That would peg it as quite likely being a sectarian interpretation wouldn’t it? It’s interesting the Śālistamba Sūtra also defines it without consciousness (and contact).

2 Likes

Yes, it looks that way. It seems like the Theravada definition is a kind of middle ground between the two I can see in Agamas. It uses the first three formless khandhas, but ends with maniskara like the Dharmaguptakas.

I think I have the impression that the Sarvastivada definition is more widespread because it’s reproduced in Mahayana sutras that are based on Sarvastivada doctrines, so I’ve seen it quite often.

2 Likes

Could I ask whether namarupa occurs in contexts other than as a link in dependent origination in any of these cases?

The vast majority of occurrences are in dependent origination sutras.

In SA, it does occur a couple times the Skandha Samyukta, usually when the conditions for vijnana come up, so it’s in a different context but still discussing dependent origination.

Passages I could find are in SA 58/SN 22.82 and SA 59.

2 Likes

Elsewhere in the Pali texts, nāmarūpa is used synonymously with the five aggregates. See p. 350 in Pali-English Dictionary (PTS) on nāma for details. That is, nāma in the Pali tradition also refers to the four arūpa khandhā (cattāro arūpino khandhā), similar to the SA or Sarvāstivāda tradition.

Can you specify the sources?

@thomaslaw referred to the PTS dictionary entry for nāma: SuttaCentral
I’m not aware of a sutta where nāma rūpa is equated with the khandhas, but it does happen in later texts.

1 Like

Can you completely separate consciousness from feeling/perception ?

Do you talk about common sense? Or if I can completely separate vinnana from vedana/sanna?

It happens in SN 12.2 (and is hinted at in its repretitions) and MN 9.

Could you point this out? I only find Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro — idaṁ vuccati nāmaṁ.

2 Likes

Sorry, you’re right. I thought you meant in the vague sense that is usually applied.

It looks like they are basing that on a passage in a commentary found at Ne 41 when I follow the reference to the entry on Khanda II.B. It has a passage that reads:

Tattha rūpakāyo rūpakkhandho nāmakāyo cattāro arūpino khandhā.

Which does indeed look like the Sarvâstivāda sutra definition of nama-rupa. Do we know the date of this commentary at all? These things, when I add them all up, tell me that there was a middle period when many of these doctrines were settled and became commonplace in the Buddhist world, whereas there was an earlier period with lots of divergence.

1 Like