Yes, Common sense,your experience and the suttas ,I want to know all these three
The application of common sense and personal experience has misled so many discussions about early Buddhism IMO that I rather stick to the suttas. I think it would be better to start a separate topic if you’re interested specifically in vinnana vs vedana vs sanna.
1 Like
Do you think vinnana is part of nama kaya or outside of nama kaya ?
Can you separate vinnana from nama kaya ?
Do you still want a separate post just for this ?
I don’t even understand the question. In the DO Vinnana comes either before namarupa or in mutual dependence. It depends on how you interpret that. In any case, I don’t even see yet that namarupa is a dvandva, i.e. that we should understand it as nama+rupa. So to me the relationship of vinnana and nama remains uncertain.
Does it? I’ve only ever read it referring to the 1st 4, with consciousness after that.
1 Like
I think it depends. Are they separated because, well, they really are separated or are they separated because said teaching corrects a common mistaken belief, namely that there can be consciousness independent from namarupa (and so permanent)?
1 Like
Nāma-rūpa equated with the khandhas is generally accepted in the Pali tradition (PED (PTS), p. 350). See also Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka, p. 121 (1980; reprinted 1997). See also the term nāma-kāya, the ‘mind-group’ as distinguished from rūpa-kāya.
1 Like
And the ‘Pali tradition’ pulls their knowledge out of thin air? If information is not reliably found in the Nykayas/Agamas then we should be sceptical. Nyanatiloka was an important scholar, but in his lineage commentarial literature and Visuddhimagga were taken as sources too uncritically from today’s perspective.
Nothing indicates that the namakaya includes consciousness. In fact if we look at DN 15 it is treated separately.
1 Like
Also in the Visuddhimagga section on dependent origination it treats them separately, if I remember correctly. Then again it might because it views consciousness in DO as being only rebirth linking.
Hi forum , mano vinnana can be regarded as mental but should five (of six) sense vinnana ie sight hearing etc included in the mental aspects ?
Do you have sutta that shows there are 3 bodies the rupa,nama and vinnana ?
It is, and it isn’t. It seems pretty clear from both DN 15 and DA 13 that nama-rupa represents the whole person who’s born into the world after consciousness descends into a mother’s womb. That would imply to me that consciousness would be included in nama. In fact, the Buddha asks rhetorical questions like “What if consciousness didn’t come out of the womb? Would there be nama-rupa?” It would seem that consciousness in the DO chain is the disembodied consciousness that’s involved in conception and remains in the new person as part of nama-rupa.
It’s interesting, then, that we have some sutras that don’t do that. namarupa must have been thought about differently, perhaps in a psychological model in which nama represents something like the caittas or objects of consciousness.
What’s interesting is how consciousness can create matter or nama-rupa
The nama is not a problem it’s the rupa that’s the problem
I think first we need to answer how consciousness can form light since light is the most lightest matter ancestor in existence
Einstein had showed that from light you can create a hydrogen atom so from light or energy you can create a matter
If buddha is right he should be more popular than even einstein
Buddha said that dimension of infinite consciousness is much more finer than dimension of infinite space
Our task is to prove that consciousness can create space and light then air then fire then water then Earth
Our task is to prove that buddha is right that from consciousness you can create rupa
Personally I wouldn’t read rupa as “matter” but more “form” or “image” or “appearance”. The Buddha seems to have rejected substance metaphysics, which is what you need to say something is “matter”.
It does but I would be wary of viewing an individual identifier to establish a theory of the person, so to speak. There isn’t any indication that was the intent there. Namakaya itself, if I recall, also appears in the section dealing with sensory processing.
It is noteworthy that the pre-buddhist notion of vijnana is not consciousness, but is either connected with distinguishment or ‘intelligence’. Especially in context of the DO it might be good to keep in mind the possibility that vinnana is not consciousness in our present sense, but that it might constitute something on which consciousness is based on.
2 Likes
Yes, contact is nama, part of mind. Consciousness of the 6 sense bases is the input of how the mind can know stuffs, from external and internal sources.
Nothing in the tradition suggests what you said.
The stages of formless meditations are to be experienced and attained by the mind via letting go. Letting go of space, there’s the consciousness itself as an object of the mind. Letting that go, there’s nothingness as the object. Letting that go, it’s neither perception nor non perception. It’s not a recipe of how to create the physical world from mind.
Also, Buddha is more popular than Einstein, he’s way older, so way more people (from 2500 years of history) knows about the Buddha compared to Einstein.
Have you checked the textual information in the mentioned PED (PTS), p. 350?
What is your point here? Do you think that nāma-rūpa is equated with the khandhas is not accepted in the ‘Pali tradition’?