Dear Robert, Stephen and friends,

as far as my understanding goes, naama-ruupa is just another name for
sentient being, basically differentiating such as beings from
something non-sentient. I am really not a language expert like you
guys, but my pocket Oxford dictionary (which never leave my desk)
defines SENTIENT as "(adj.) capable of perceiving and feeling
things." :-)

I am always fascinated when the Buddha sometimes mention about beings
in the form of energy, such as light. If naama is matter, and is part
of being sentient, the question is whether energy = matter. We should
consider ourselves lucky, as Einstein seems to have proven the Buddha
right, that matter = energy (doing a great favour to us, and sparing
us from argument). Quantum scientists have further proved that light
and many forms of energy actually take a form, that of quantums. So,
now it is clear to me that it is possible that sentient beings can
really exist in the form of light. In the spirit of Buddhism, I
always use the word 'possible' for such situation until I see or
experience it myself, although we know that isn't necessary to
appreciate the greater parts of the Buddha's teachings.


metta,
Yong Peng

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Hodge wrote:
> Mind is a concept that also doesn't help us- cittas and cetasikas
> are nama (mentality), they do not depend on 'brain'.

1. There is a line in the SN which says "naamaruupa-samudaaya
cittassa samudayo" -- which my poor Pali knowledge suggests "By the
arising of naama-ruupa, [there is] the arising of the citta". To me,
this implies that there is some sort of dependence upon ruupa as well
as naama. I am therefore puzzled by the above statement of yours.
Could you help out, please ?