Hi Bryan,

It is actually a very intesting passage. Ven. K. Nyanananda has a great
passage on this one in his Nibbana sermons regarding the deeper implications
of this expression:

==============

...And this is the standard definition of *nàma* in *Abhidhamma* com­pendiums
and commentaries. The idea of bending towards an object is brought in to
explain the word *nàma*. It may be that they thought it too simple an
interpretation to explain *nàma *with reference to `name', particularly
be­cause it is a term that has to do with deep in­sight. However as far as
the teachings in the *sut­tas *are concerned, *nàma *still has a great depth
even when it is understood in the sense of `name'.

*Nàmaü sabbaü anvabhavi,*

*nàmà bhiyyo na vijjati,*

*nàmassa ekadhammassa,*

*sabbeva vasam­anvagå*.[7]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn7>

"Name has conquered everything,

There is nothing greater than name,

All have gone un­der the sway

Of this one thing called name."

Also there is another verse of the same type, but unfortunately its original
meaning is often ig­nored by the present day com­men­tators:

*Akkheyyasaññino sattà,*

*akkheyyasmiṃ patiṭṭhità,*

*akkhey­yaü apariññàya,*

*yogam àyanti maccuno**.(*[8]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_ednref8>
S
I 11, *Samiddhisutta*.)

"Beings are conscious of what can be named,

They are estab­lished on the nameable,

By not comprehending the nameable things,

They come under the yoke of death."

All this shows that the word *nàma* has a deep significance even when it is
taken in the sense of `name'.

But now let us see whether there is something wrong in ren­dering *nàma* by
`name' in the case of the term *nàma-råpa*. To begin with, let us turn to
the definition of *nàma-råpa* as given by the Venerable *Sàriputta* in the*
Sammàdiññhisutta* of the *Majjhima Nikàya*.

*Vedanà, sa¤¤à, cetanà, phasso, manasikàro - idaü vuc­catàvuso,
nàmaü*; *cattàri
ca mahà­bhåtàni, catunna¤ca mahà­bhåtànaü upàdàyaråpaü - idaü vuccatàvuso,
råpaü. Iti ida¤ca nàmaü ida¤ca råpaü - idam vuccatàvuso
nàma-råpaü.*[9]<http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm#_edn9>
* *"Feel­ing, perception, inten­tion, contact, attention - this, friend, is
called `name'. The four great primaries and form dependent on the four great
pri­maries - this, friend, is called `form'. So this is `name' and this is
`form' - this, friend, is called `name-and-form'."

Well, this seems lucid enough as a definition but let us see, whether there
is any justification for regarding feeling, percep­tion, intention, contact
and attention as `name'. Suppose there is a little child, a toddler, who is
still unable to speak or understand language. Someone gives him a rubber
ball and the child has seen it for the first time. If the child is told that
it is a rubber ball, he might not under­stand it. How does he get to know
that ob­ject? He smells it, feels it, and tries to eat it, and finally rolls
it on the floor. At last he under­stands that it is a plaything. Now the
child has recog­nised the rubber ball not by the name that the world has
given it, but by those factors included un­der `name' in *nàma-råpa*, namely
feeling, perception, intention, contact and at­tention.

This shows that the definition of *nàma* in *nàma-råpa* takes us back to the
most fundamental no­tion of `name', to something like its prototype. The
world gives a name to an object for pur­poses of easy communication. When it
gets the sanction of oth­ers, it becomes a convention.

====

From: Nibbana Sermon 1, link: http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana01.htm

metta,

Lennart


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]