What is the meaning of Nama in Nama Rupa?

[tommit]

In a simple way I can tell you that “citta” is what you experience and “nama-rupa” is what is experienced, even though the codepedence is total during the course of a lifetime. In fact we could talk more about contact.

Nama-rupa is the interface.

Rupa is the part of the interface in charge of providing the basic input / output system, or in other words, the senses. Proprioception is used for Nama to organize the body and the equilibrium to place it in the conceptual space.

With regard to sight, for example, rupa provides flashes of colors of 50ms every 250ms, or four per second. From there, conceptualize by filling in the dark spaces (90% of the time looks black) interpolating, and later by contrasting color, creates shapes. Already with shapes and colors are passed to nama for the process of recognition buying it with stored qualias. The one that most resembles is named with the label. Thus we see a “tree.”

Sound operates the same, from perceived vibrations to hearing “words” …

This is verified experimentally by means of zero-based meditation, from the second hour of being without a single thought.

Nama is the part of the interface that contains “concepts”, or “memes”. Its basic units are a label and a set of qualias. This set is used for the process of identification of qualia contributed by rupa, in order to realize the conceptualization. In Nama live the concepts, being the strongest I.

Citta in an ordinary person only attends to nama-rupa constantly. But Citta can perceive without perception, (neither perception nor non-perception), and when she has access to Wisdom.

The natural mode of citta is the fourth immaterial jhana, and there it really rests.

Death is the end of nama-rupa: the senses and memory are lost. But as long as there is existence, another nama-rupa will appear. Different models of nama-rupa are demons, animals, petas, humans, and all the variety of “luminous beings”.

The different modes of citta that interact with different models of nama-rupa, is what the Buddha called “dwellings” or “seasons”.

The non-return is to eradicate the attachment in the present human nama-rupa.

The total liberation consists in accessing all modes of citta and eradicating all attachment there. Fundamentally in the modes of devas, where attachment is very strong. They are modes of strong attachment and weak ignorance. Hell is the opposite. That is why usually after deva one goes to hell.

The exercises to achieve this consist in climbing up all the jhanas, from the first material to the fourth immaterial and remaining in cessation, and then lowering. Each level corresponds to a mode of operation (dwelling), in which attachment must be eradicated.

Liberation consists in breaking the codependency of nama-rupa with citta, formed from the adherence of citta with nama-rupa, so that when nama-rupa dies, citta is released.

All this you have in the mahanidana sutta and in sutta of the dependent origin. But it requires a finer translation.

[Sylvester]

We have this basic structure, repeated for all the other elements -

Katamā cāvuso, pathavīdhātu? Pathavīdhātu siyā ajjhattikā, siyā bāhirā. Katamā cāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu? Yaṃ ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ kakkhaḷaṃ kharigataṃ upādinnaṃ, seyyathidaṃ—kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, yaṃ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ kakkhaḷaṃ kharigataṃ upādinnaṃ. Ayaṃ vuccatāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu.

What, friends, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to; that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element.

Is kakkhaḷaṃ properly translated as if it were the adjective “solid”?

If you look at the corresponding passages for the subsequent 3 elements, what you have in that part of the passage are āpo, tejo, and vāyo, all nominative singular substantives (not adjectives). This would suggest that kakkhaḷaṃ is also a nominative, and despite the unusual -ṃ ending, is a nominative of label (see other -ṃ ending nominatives such as saḷāyatanaṃ in SN 12.1).

Given that kakkhaḷaṃ is itself a substantive noun and not an adjective, it is more properly rendered as Solidity (notice the capitalisation required for nominatives of label). This makes it clear that it is a quality that can be pegged to the examplars that follow (ie the bones et al). The fact that the list is not a closed list but simply examples is furnished by the 2nd bolded clause above.

In fact, if one examines the Chinese parallel, an interesting omission is noticed in the Pali. Besides the above passage, the Chinese includes an additional proposition “內之所受” (that which is internally felt) to supplement Solidity. What it suggests is that the Form Aggregate really only makes sense upon contact (taking feeling as being dependant on contact).

The clearest indication that Form has nothing to do with materiality is found a little lower down in MN 28 -

…when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

The form in what has thus come to be is included in the form aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging etc etc

ditto for audition, olfaction, gustation and tactility

… when internally the mind is intact and external mind-objects come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

“The form in what has thus come to be (tathābhūta) is included in the form aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging.

Can there be anything clearer than this to support the propositions -

1. Purely mental contact gives rise to the Form Aggregate; and
2. Form is the “form” (not materiality) of that which is tathābhūta, which in the preceding paragraph is simply contact?

[suci1]

This idea that rūpa means what is apparent, and nāma what is not, is a just a view among others.

Now kharigata in kakkhaḷaṃ kharigataṃ upādinnaṃ can be traced to khara = rough, hard, sharp; painful [Sanskrit खर khara dense; solid; which is usually opposed to drava (liquid)].

I suppose that one would understand the meaning of khara, once he’ll hit the sharp edge of a wall with its toe. That should teach him the “hard” way what “painful” means.

Another way to also experience the former without delay, would be to run up towards this external form (appearance) that is the sharp edged of the said wall - with an “intact” eye - then try to go through that “appearance”. And ponder on the “intactness” (quality) of that eye after contact.
(unless you have reached the idhis that are above the fourth jhana; (viz. beyond the nāma/rūpa realms) - beyond low life (“external”) magic).

Even bloody classical physics tells us what matter is. Let alone modern.

Now, on the side, I would not take, as a principle, what is said in MN, if it does not have also an occurence in another sutta; mainly SN or SA. But I might be running on too much principles.

---

As for Maiev, I think he is right saying that the “bubble illusion” is just a plain misunderstanding.
If people were to read suttas up to the end, they would have noticed the following in SN 22.95:

When vitality, heat, and consciousness
Depart from this physical body,
Then it lies there cast away:
Food for others, without volition.

“Such is this continuum,
This illusion, beguiler of fools.
It is taught to be a murderer;
Here no substance can be found.

Optional note: a bit on misinterpretation

People have not only read SN 22.95 wrongly.

The same kind of misunderstanding has happened with manomaya in the Dhammapadha’s Dhp 1.
They have read only the beginning of that line. Not the rest of the verses.
Otherwise they would have understood that it was dealing with an ethical instruction; that is to say: “think bad, and the results will be bad”. A pure kamma law instruction.

---

And while we are at it, there is lately on the forum a question about the “middle” way.
People seem to misinterpret the word majjha/madhya

Again, refering to the Kāṇva Shākha, one might find these chosen interesting passages in ŚBR:

Madhya in ṢBr.

And those (bricks) which he lays down in the centre are the vital air; he lays them down on the range of the two Retahsik (bricks), for the retahsik are the ribs, and the ribs are the middle: he thus lays the vital air into him (Agni and the Sacrificer) in the very middle (of the body). On every side he lays down (the central bricks) in every part he thus lays vital air into him; and in the same way indeed that intestinal breath (channel) is turned all round. Atha yā madhya upadadhāti | sa prāṇastā retaḥsicorvelayopadadhāti pṛṣṭayo vai retaḥsicau madhyamu pṛṣṭayo madhyata evāsminnetatprāṇaṃ dadhāti sarvata upadadhāti sarvata evāsminnetatprāṇaṃ dadhātyatho evaṃ haiṣa gudaḥ prāṇaḥ samantaṃ nâbhim paryakno nűcîúca tiraúcîúcopadadhâti tasmâdime 'nvańcaśca tiryańcaścātmanprāṇāḥ saṃspṛṣṭā upadadhāti prāṇānevaitatsaṃtanoti saṃdadhāti tasmādime prāṇāḥ saṃtatāḥ saṃhitāḥ ŚBr. 8.1.3.[10]

---

Now some lay down (these bricks) so as to be in contact with the (gold) man, for he is the vital air, and him these (bricks) sustain; and because they sustain (bhri) the vital air (prâna), therefore they are called ‘Prânabhritah.’ Let him not do so: the vital air is indeed the same as that gold man, but this body of his extends to as far here as this fire (altar) has been marked out. Hence to whatever limb of his these (breath-holders) were not to reach, that limb of his the vital air would not reach; and, to be sure, to whatever limb the vital air does not reach, that either dries up or withers away: let him therefore lay down these (bricks) so as to be in contact with the enclosing stones; and by those which he lays down in the middle this body of his is filled up, and they at least are not separated from him.
Tā haike puruṣamupārpyopadadhati | eṣa vai prāṇastametā bibhrati yatprāṇam bibhrati tasmātprāṇabhṛta iti na tathā kuryādeṣo 'haiva prāṇo ya eṣa hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣastasya tvayamātmā yāvadidamabhyayamagnirvihitastadyaddhāsyaitā aṅga nābhiprāpnuyuḥ prāṇo hāsya tadaṅgaṃ nābhiprāpnuyādyadu vai prāṇo 'ṅgaṃ nābhiprāpnoti śuṣyati vā vai tanmlāyati vā tasmādenāḥ pariśritsvevopārpyopadadhyādatha yā madhya upadadhāti tābhirasyaiṣa ātmā pūrṇastā u evaitasmādanantarhitāḥ
ŚBr. 8.1.4.[1]

---

They spake, ‘Let us lay it down in the middle: when laid down in our midst, it will belong to all of us.’ They laid it down in the middle (of the fifth layer), and thus they laid that success into the self (or the body of the altar);–in the middle (they laid it): they thus laid that success into the very middle of (Agni’s and their own) self. And in like manner does the Sacrificer, when he lays down the Gārhapatya, lay that success into (his own) self; and (by laying it down) in the middle, he lays that success into the very middle of the self.
Te 'bruvan | madhya evopadadhāmahai sa no madhya upahitaḥ sarveṣām bhaviṣyatīti taṃ madhya upādadhata tadetāṃ rāddhimātmannadadhata madhyato madhyata evaitadetāṃ rāddhimātmannadadhata tathaivaitadyajamāno yadgārhapatyamupadadhātyetāmevaitadrāddhimātmandhatte madhyato madhyata evaitadetāṃ rāddhimātmandhatte
ŚBr. 8.6.3.[4]

---

Now some lay it down on the hind part (of the bird-like altar), because it is from the hind part that seed is introduced,–(to wit) on the juncture of the tail (and the body), for it is from (the part near) the tail that seed is introduced. Let him not do this, for they who do this lay seed and generative power outside the womb; but let him rather place it in the centre: he thus lays seed and generative power right into the womb.
Tāṃ haike jaghanārdha upadadhati | jaghanārdhādvai retaḥ sicyate pucasaṃdhau pucādvai retaḥ sicyata iti na tathā kuryādbahirdhā ha te yone retaḥ prajātiṃ dadhati ye tathā kurvanti madhya evopadadhyāttatsamprati yonau retaḥ prajātiṃ dadhāti
ŚBr. 8.6.3.[11]

Madhya still conveys the meaning of middle, midst, centre; but most precisely the inside, interior ([u]internal[/u]) connotation found in RV. The gist of genuine Buddhism. The "sign of your own mind".

---

Let’s take another example: rūpa.
It is often misinterpreted that rūpa means “appearance”, and that it is unreal and illusory. This is often due to people who have not read Veda, or are poorly acquainted with them. Or maybe because they just rely on the Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary definitions.
However, rūpa since the Ṛg Veda, until a close pre or post-Buddhism Upaniṣad like Chandogya (and even after that,) has conveyed the meaning of the real display of some unmanifested entity. For instance, the cow is the representation (rūpa) of the god Agni. Or the sun, or the fire are the luminous form (jyotīrūpam) of the same Agni. Never is it said that this display is unreal or illusory. Quite the contrary.

[Maiev]

@Sylvester

Purely mental contact gives rise to the Form Aggregate; and
Form is the “form” (not materiality) of that which is tathābhūta, which in the preceding paragraph is simply contact?

In the world of the being (internal world) there can not arise form without contact because form would not be discerned.

But to draw from this conclusions similar to Nanananda means twisting the suttas to the point where we end up in the first wrong view listed in the wrong view section. (the winds do not blow, rivers do not flow). By the way, there also exist a realm where beings have only body but not consciousness.

I still do not understand if your opinion is of the philosophical idealism sort or not. So I will ask you a simple question: If you were to die tomorrow, would other beings that exist in this world continue to exist even if you can not perceive them ? Would the rivers, the trees etc. continue to exist or were they just an internal product of your consciousness combined with the other aggregates ?

[Brahmali]

@sujato

Again, the point is not to make a genuine explanation, but to create the illusion of explanation.

Maybe the main point was not to explain anything. Maybe the point, rather, was to keep restless minds occupied. I am inclined to think that a lot of post-EBT Buddhism is the result of clever but restless minds. And I don’t think it occurred to them that they were in fact dragging Buddhism down in the process.

[SarathW1]

It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

I think my OP question is wrong.
It appears I can’t ask what is Nama in Namarupa.
it appears Namarupa is something specific term.
Can I show you a candle and ask what is the candle and what is the fire?
I think the candle and the fire can not be separated from each other.

[sujato]

@Brahmali

Maybe the point, rather, was to keep restless minds occupied

There has to be more to it than that, surely! The other day I was chatting with Ayya Vimala, and she mentioned a monk she knows, who is very erudite in the Abhidhamma. She implied that his followers were very impressed with his knowledge, and it gave him an air of authority and prestige. I laughed, and said that was, in fact, the basic thesis of The Mystique of the Abhidhamma: the point of the Abhidhamma is to manufacture prestige. It’s like getting published in a “reputable” publisher, or getting into a “good” University. This is what I saw, over and over again, in Thailand.

[Brahmali]

Sure. But then prestige is pretty much always the point. The question is how to get it. For most the easier way is intellectualising.

[sujato]

@Brahmali

For most the easier way is intellectualising.

For the intelligent, yes. For most, doing some chanting and waving a wand, er, holy water, around is easier still.

[Sylvester]

@Maiev

But to draw from this conclusions similar to Nanananda means twisting the suttas to the point where we end up in the first wrong view listed in the wrong view section.

I am quite startled by this on 2 grounds.

Firstly, you conceded -

@Maiev

In the world of the being (internal world) there can not arise form without contact because form would not be discerned.

From what I have proposed for MN 28 (which you appear to have accepted as above), I don’t see how it can be charged that I subscribe to Ven Nanananda’s Idealist interpretation of Dependant Arising. If I understand Ven Nanananda’s project with the 6 Bases, as set out in his Nibbana Sermons 4, it is his understanding of SN 12.15’s injunction against “sabbamatthi” and “sabbaṃ natthi” that forms the basis for his Idealist conception of the 6 Bases. His idealism entails the inappropriateness of ascribing either existence or non-existence to every of the 12 parts of the Bases.

While I do not expect you to have followed every post I have made here or on DW criticising Ven Nanananda’s parsing of SN 12.15 as wrong and confusing the “All” (sabbaṃ) with “everything” (as he interprets it), could you pls explain how my post above qualifies as veering towards Ven Nanananda’s Idealism? Where have I said or implied that the 6 external Bases are incapable of existence?

The second reason for my being surprised arises from the fact that there is no logical connection between criticising my viewpoint as Idealist with the issue of whether or not rūpa is material. They are not even mutually exclusive, as Idealism does not preclude material bits from being as such with cognition. One contemporary variety would be the Strong and Participatory Anthropic Principles.

So, the question that you pose me does not solve the problem. Whether or not I am an Idealist, would not inform the discussion of whether or not rūpa is material. If I say I am an Idealist, that only solves the question of whether rūpa exists outside of cognition. If I say I am not an Idealist but a realist, that only means I hold that rūpa exists outside of cognition. This issue resolves the ontic status of rūpa, but not of its materiality or otherwise. One concerns ontics, the other concerns quiddity.

My analysis of MN 28 was not to assert anything concerned with making an ontic commitment or otherwise for the 4 elements, since I take that sutta as being quite self-evident that the 4 elements per se exists whether or not we are cognisant of them. The ontic issue is relevant only to the Form Aggregate, but not Form per se.

How will making an ontic commitment about something translate into and lead logically to the quiddity conclusion that it is “material”? If such a logical operator exists, it would mean that the proposition that “feelings are immaterial” would be false, since we can make ontic commitments about feelings. Because feelings can be seen to exist (albeit dependant on a condition), it must follow by your reasoning that feelings are “material”. Ditto for every cause in Dependant Arising.

If you disagree with my analysis, by all means tackle the grammatical analysis I have offered. I just don’t see the utility of lashing it with the charge of Idealism, since that is not relevant to the quiddity of rūpa.

[SarathW1]

I just Googled (good old) to find some more answers. The two best links are:

Namarupa

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha262.htm

and

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=25215&hilit=Namarupa

[Mkoll]

@Brahmali

I am inclined to think that a lot of post-EBT Buddhism is the result of clever but restless minds.

I agree. And I think there are passages within the EBTs that are a result of similar processes.

[Maiev]

Sorry for misunderstanding you but english is not my native language so I have problems understanding nuances. When I heard “form should be translated as appearence” my mind went straight to Nanananda.

As for the translation itself, I don’t understand why you would suggest that. Material form is much more better and suggestive. Even if only “form” is left, the person will still get the idea it is speaking about (what we call) material form due to descriptions in the suttas dealing with “and what is internal/external form ?”

This being said, I do not see what translating it as appearence would acomplish. People will understand the idea that material form is not considered “more solid” than consciousness or feelings due to other suttas. Trying to do a translation that covers 100 nuances is like trying to put a book in the translation of one word. In my opinion, there is no need to do that and such a thing would make the text more ambiguous not more clear. All the time I see this kind of attempts to put 10 nuances into the transation of a word because of the fact that we can’t prefectly translate from pali to english and in the end the translation ends up missing the big point because of trying to put another 10 small points in there. It is like trying to put the whole nikayas into the main sutta about dependent origination.

Proof of this is how I instantly misunderstood you as a philosophical idealist.

[Sylvester]

@Maiev

This being said, I do not see what translating it as appearence would acomplish.

You’re right, in that in most cases, materiality would be all that can be discerned of Form, when one is immersed in the kāmaloka.

But when one begins to meditate, it will become apparent that defining Form as materiality becomes very inadequate. How useful is “materiality” as a quality to describe the Form Aggregate that is the “form of what has arisen” (tathābhūtassa rūpaṃ), when the text is very clear that what has arisen (tathābhūta) is consciousness?

If we adopt your suggestion, it would mean having one set of predicates for Form for the non-meditator, and another set for meditators. Why would that be necessary, when there is no evidence from the pre-Buddhist Upanisads to suggest that they understood rūpa as anything other than appearance? A universal definition that works in the Upanisadic sense, in the context of one mired in the kāmā, and in the context of those who transcend the kāmā seems preferable.

However, if one argues for the adoption of the Abhidhammic definition of rūpa as that which is contactable by the 5 senses, why stop there and reject its definition of subtle rūpa perceptible only by the mind?

Take a look at the Sanskrit parallel to MN 117. There it suggests strongly that rūpa is what is needed to make something “illustrated/visible” (anidarsana).

[SarathW1]

Ajahn Braham answer to Namarupa.
This is very close to what I understand as Namarupa.

Nama-Rupa fading away and disappearing

[majjhima]

@sujato

Don’t underestimate the scope of the problem. When I taught a sutta course in Jakarta, I was told that that was the first time anyone had taught the suttas in Indonesia. Is that true? I find it hard to believe, but maybe it is. But nevertheless it is telling. Modern Theravada is all Abhidhamma, all the time.

Well I’m an Indonesian and yes this is true. Most people here know more about Abhidhamma specifically Abhidhammatasangaha then Sutta Pitaka. Everytime something different between the Sutta and Abhidhamma, they don’t care much about the Sutta, or just noted there are difference between the two and that’s that. Even Abhidhammatasangaha become the required course for a samanera wanted to be ordained.

Prominent bhikkhu exclusively teach Abhidhammatasangaha and don’t even ask the number of followers. Discussing nama-rupa isn’t five aggregates is a useless matter here, as they will discard your voice. I mean the voice of Sutta Pitaka. Not to mention there are rising meditation teacher who push their teaching based on Abhidhammatasangaha (bunch of theory before meditation style). IMO suprisingly people love this theory more, practice less kind of way. The dark times of Buddhism

[Deeele]

@Maiev

When I heard “form should be translated as appearence” my mind went straight to Nanananda.

If form was appearance then each individual would experience different appearances. For different individuals, the same object would be a tree or a cat or a cloud. Each form would appear differently to each mind. If one person went to a shop and asked for an apple, the shopkeeper might provide a watermelon because each form is of different appearance to each person. Worse, today an apple might appear as a cucumber for the same person and the next day the cucumber appears as a elephant. It would be as though each person on earth takes LSD each day or each moment. There would be no consistency of external perception.

Also, SN 22.95 does not state form is a mirage. The mirage is perception. Form is a lump of froth floating down a river. It has more permanence than perceptions, as stated in SN 12.61

For the purposes of SN 12.2; MN 9, etc, form appears to be well described in MN 62. It appears to be material rather than mental.

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that’s hard, solid, & sustained: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes craving for the earth property fade from the mind.

"And what is the water property? The water property may be either internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s water, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s water, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal water property. Now both the internal water property & the external water property are simply water property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.

"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, & savored gets properly digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now both the internal fire property & the external fire property are simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes craving for the wind property fade from the mind.

For a Brahmanistic bent, ‘form’ is described in DN 15.

Therefore, we are free as individuals to choose to rely on SN 12.2 & MN or, alternately, DN 15.

Since nama-rupa in DN 15 has no relationship to dukkha & its cessation in my experience, I choose to stick to SN 12,2, MN 9, etc, which provide the meaning of ‘nama’ to mean ‘feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention’, for which MN 111 adds ‘mindfulness, zeal, energy, decision’, etc.

In short, ‘nama’ appears to mean ‘mentality’ in Buddhism and ‘name/naming’ in Brahmanism.

[Deeele]

From The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Section VI - The Three Aspects of the Universe:

This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action (trayaṃ vā idam—nāma rūpaṃ karma).

Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.

Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.

And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions.

These three together are one—this body, and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements): The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form are truth (nāmarūpe satyam); (so) this vital force is covered by them.

[SarathW1]

This is not inline with Buddha’s teaching, Dependent Originaton.

[sujato]

Thanks for this, it is a useful reminder of how much the Buddhist terminology leans on the Brahmanical.