Dear Lennart,
Op 6-jan-2011, om 18:25 heeft Lennart Lopin het volgende geschreven:

> 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*
> Sammàdi.t.thisutta* of the *Majjhima Nikàya*.

-------
N: Naama can have two meanings, 'name' and also mental phenomenon,
namely citta and cetasika. Also nibbaana is naama, an unconditioned
naama.
We have to look at the context to know in which sense naama is used.

Naama and ruupa are often translated as name and form, but this seems
to me confusing.
Naama and ruupa are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. They are
different from conventional truth such as a table or person. They
each have their own characteristics that can be directly experienced
and that cannot be altered. For instance, anger is always anger, even
if we give it another name. It has its own characteristic. We should
not cling to the name anger but rather investigate its characteristic
so that it can be known as non-self, not my anger.
A name can denote something that is not real in the ultimate sense or
it can denote a paramattha dhamma. Vipassanaa is being developed
through direct awareness of naama and ruupa and there is no need to
lable or name naama and ruupa. Their characteristics are experienced.
The aim is to directly know their true nature of impermanent, dukkha,
anattaa.

-------
Nina.





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