---In
Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Lars Siebold" <khandha5@...> wrote:
> > Dear Lars,
> > I think the most important point is to know the meaning when we
read
> > it. If we are studying the Paticcasamuppada then it is obvious
that
> > vinnana is given a separate category. If we are studying the
> > commentaries they make it clear that sometimes when they
use 'nama'
> > it includes vinnana and sometimes not.
> ----------
> That is what I mean. The use of nama as mentality is something
introduced by
> the commentaries and is not to be found in the suttas. But here
then, we
> were concerned with translating the suttas, so nama should
certainly not be
> translated in commentarial terms.
________
Dear Lars,
I think the section of the sutta that was originally discussed here
didn't have the word nama. It mentioned rupa and there was some
question about whether matter or materiality or physicality was the
better translation.
__________
>
> I shall add two passages to give some more food for thought:
>
> This is from "The Nibbana Sermons" Part 1 by Bhikkhu K. Nanananda
> (http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm):
> ---
> ...We find ourselves in a similar situation with regard to the
> significance of ruupa in naama-ruupa. Here too we have something
deep, but
> many take naama-ruupa to mean `mind and matter'. Like materialists,
they
> think there is a contrast between mind and matter. But according to
the
> Dhamma there is no such rigid distinction. It is a pair that is
> interrelated and taken together it forms an important link in the
chain of
> pa.ticca samuppaada.
> Ruupa exists in relation to `name' and that is to say that form is
known
> with the help of `name'.
_________
I think venerable Nananda's idea about nama meaning 'name' is missing
the actualness of these dhammas. These phenomena he calls 'name' are
arising and passing away all the time. They are not concepts even
though we use concepts to talk about them..
The basic philosophical position of materialists is that mental
phenomena are at most an epiphenomenon of matter (in the brain).
This is not the position of the commentaries so I am not sure why he
gives this comparison.
Also I think his sugggestion that the ancient commentaries don't see
the relationship between nama and rupa is misleading.They go into
many details about the different conditions for rupa some of which
include `nama' . Particularly when talking about Paticccasamupadda
-------------------------------------------------------
>>Then we have a part from Nanavira Thera's "Notes on Dhamma"
(
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/sn-nama.htm):
---
>>The passage at Dígha ii,2 [9] is essential for an understanding of
>>námarúpa,
>and it rules out the facile and slipshod interpretation of námarúpa
>>as
'mind-&-matter'...
.>>..When náma is understood as 'mind' or 'mentality' it will
>>inevitably
>>include viññána or consciousness -- as, for example, in the
>>Visuddhimagga
(Ch. XVIII passim). This is entirely without justification in the
Suttas;
___________________________
I think the venerable Nanavira may have missed the relevant section
in the Visuddhimagga. His quote from the Digha is about
Paticcasamuppada and in the Visuddhimagga in the section on
paticcasamuppada (the Panna- bhumi-niddesa)it is at pains to explain
that namarupa, when talking about Paticcasamuppada, does not include
vinnana, as I said in an earlier post.
__
---------------------------
>>and it is clear enough that any mode of thinking that proposes to
make a
>fundamental division between 'mind' and 'matter' will soon find
>>itself among
>>insuperable difficulties. 'Mind' (i.e. mano in one of its senses)
already
>>means 'imagination' as opposed to 'reality', and it cannot also be
opposed
to 'matter'. 'Reality' and 'matter' are not by any means the same
>>thing --
is real pain (as opposed to imaginary pain) also material pain? There
are,
>>to be sure, various distinctions..
_____________
I don't think mano as used in the suttas- is restricted
to `imagination.
__________________
">>Bodily pain may be real or
>>imaginary, and so may volitional pain (grief), but material pain --
painful
>>feeling composed of matter -- is a contradiction in terms"
__________________
I am not sure what this means. According to the commentaries and
Abhidhamma even bodily pain- i.e. pain arising at the body door is
still vedana and thus mental. Is the venerable Nanivira suggesting
that the commentaries thought some pain was rupa?
RobertK