Hi Lennart,

Thanks very much for the references. Yes I think naama is extremely basic as the
passage from the SN says; indeed, "name has conquered everything" and we are
always getting caught up in our names, making them permanent, serious and
suffering because of them (look what some political and religious "names" have
done to the world). And often they refer to something which doesn't even exist.

The logical conclusion to this is that without naming, there would be no
feel­ing, perception, inten­tion, contact or attention to get caught up in.
Presumably one would use names and concepts, but not be manipulated by them -
the state of an arhant or what the Buddha meant by santo santipade rato ("the
peaceful one delights in the peaceful state) in Itivuttaka 63

Metta,

Bryan







________________________________
From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 12:25:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Pali] a.t.thahaakaarehi


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]






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