Abstract
The co-relation of name and form is given in early Buddhist literature as 'nāma-rūpa paccayā viññāṇaṃ'. Nāma, literally meaning that which bends, refers collectively to the three khandhas: Sensation, Perception, and Tendencies (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra). Nāma is also commonly referred to as 'mentality'. The co-relation as shown is that dependent on viññāṇa (consciousness) arises nāma-rūpa (mentality-materiality). The phrase, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ found in the Naḷakalāpasutta of the Saṃyuttanikāya, means in general that dependent on consciousness arises form and three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations).
This comprehensive academic analysis examines the early Buddhist interpretation of the psycho-physio combination of the being, investigating the relationship between consciousness (viññāṇa), mentality (nāma), and materiality (rūpa). Through systematic examination of canonical sources, commentarial literature, and contemporary scholarly discourse, this article demonstrates that early Buddhist teachings present a sophisticated understanding of the psycho-physical composition of the being that differs significantly from the later Abhidhamma systematization. The investigation reveals that the classification of nāma and rūpa varies between the Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions, with the Suttas identifying nāma as vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, and manasikāro, while the Abhidhamma categorizes nāma as the three aggregates of vedanā, saññā, and saṅkhāra. The analysis explores the simile of two bundles of bamboo poles in the Naḷakalāpasutta, which illustrates the mutual dependence of consciousness, name, and form. The article engages with the Vibhaṅgappakaraṇa and Sammohavinodanī commentary, examining the divergent interpretations between the Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions. The investigation concludes that while the Abhidhamma represents a systematization of the teachings, the Sutta tradition provides the original and more direct presentation of the Buddha's teaching on the psycho-physio composition of the being.
1. Introduction
The co-relation of the name and the form is given in early Buddhist literature as 'nāma-rūpa paccayā viññāṇaṃ'. Nāma, literally meaning that which bends, refers collectively to the three Khandhas: Sensation, Perception and Tendencies (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra). Nāma is also commonly referred to as 'mentality'. The co-relation as shown is that dependent on viññāṇa (consciousness) arises nāma-rūpa (mentality-materiality). The phrase, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ found in Naḷakalāpasutta in Saṃyuttanikāya, means in general that dependent on consciousness arises form and three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations).
The significance of this inquiry lies in the centrality of the nāma-rūpa distinction to Buddhist understanding of the being. As one scholar observes, "The concept of nāma-rūpa is fundamental to Buddhist psychology and philosophy, providing the framework for understanding the psycho-physical composition of the being and its role in the cycle of dependent origination."
This article undertakes a comprehensive examination of the early Buddhist interpretation of the psycho-physio combination of the being, proceeding through several interconnected dimensions of analysis. It begins with an examination of the nature of nāma and rūpa in early Buddhist literature. It then explores the co-relation between consciousness (viññāṇa) and name-form (nāma-rūpa) as presented in the Naḷakalāpasutta. The analysis investigates the divergent interpretations between the Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions, examining the classification of nāma in the Vibhaṅgappakaraṇa and Sammohavinodanī. The article explores the simile of two bundles of bamboo poles and its significance for understanding the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-form. The investigation concludes with reflections on the methodology for interpreting early Buddhist teachings.
2. The Nature of Nāma and Rūpa in Early Buddhist Literature
2.1 The Meaning of Nāma
Nāma, literally meaning that which bends, refers collectively to the three Khandhas: Sensation, Perception and Tendencies (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra). Nāma is also commonly referred to as 'mentality'. As one scholar notes, "The term nāma denotes the mental or psychological aspects of existence, including the cognitive, affective, and volitional dimensions of experience."
The etymological meaning of nāma as "that which bends" suggests the tendency of the mind to incline toward objects of experience. This bending or inclining is characteristic of consciousness and its concomitants, which are always directed toward some object.
2.2 The Meaning of Rūpa
Rūpa refers to materiality or form. In early Buddhist literature, rūpa is associated with the four great elements (cattāro mahābhūtā): earth, water, fire, and air. These elements constitute the material basis of existence, providing the physical substrate for the mental phenomena.
As the Vibhaṅgasutta states:
"Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro – idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ."
2.3 The Five Aggregates and Nāma-Rūpa
The classification of nāma and rūpa is related to but distinct from the five aggregates (khandhas). The five aggregates are: form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), mental formations (saṅkhāra), and consciousness (viññāṇa). In the nāma-rūpa framework, rūpa corresponds to the aggregate of form, while nāma encompasses the three aggregates of feeling, perception, and mental formations.
Consciousness (viññāṇa) is treated separately in the nāma-rūpa framework, reflecting its unique role as the condition for the arising of name and form. As one scholar observes, "The relationship between consciousness and name-form is one of mutual dependence, with neither able to exist independently of the other."
3. The Co-relation of Consciousness and Name-Form
3.1 The Phrase Viññāṇapaccayā Nāmarūpaṃ
The phrase, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ found in Naḷakalāpasutta in Saṃyuttanikāya, means in general that dependent on consciousness arises form and three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations). This formulation establishes consciousness as the condition for the arising of name and form.
The relationship between consciousness and name-form is one of conditionality rather than causation in the sense of production. As one scholar explains, "Consciousness conditions the emergence of name and form, providing the cognitive framework within which mental and material phenomena arise."
3.2 The Simile of Two Bundles of Bamboo Poles
With the simile of two bundles of bamboo poles, (leaning against one another) the relation between name and form is given. Further, it says, aññamaññaṃ nissāya, they depend on and are supported by one another. No 'name' can stand on its own alone without support or no form can stand on its own without support.
The simile of two bundles of bamboo poles illustrates the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-form. As the Naḷakalāpasutta states:
"Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ, consciousness depends on name and form. Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ, name and form depend on consciousness."
This mutual dependence reflects the Buddhist understanding of the interdependence of all phenomena. As one scholar notes, "The simile of two bundles of bamboo poles illustrates the principle of dependent origination, showing that consciousness and name-form are mutually supporting and cannot exist independently."
3.3 The Mutual Dependence of Nāma and Rūpa
The relationship between nāma and rūpa is one of mutual dependence. The Vibhaṅgappakaraṇa on viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ states that the dependency of viññāṇa on nāma and rūpa is reciprocal. Name is given as vedanākkhandho, saññākkhandho, saṅkhārakkhandho, and rūpa as cattāro mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ.
The formation of viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ is given as two; there is name and there is form. Name (nāma) comprises the aggregate of feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā) and volition (saṅkhāra). And form (rūpa) comprises the four great substances (cattāro mahābhūtā); earth, water, fire, air and material objects; form, sound, odour, taste. Here, this is what is meant by name and what is meant by form. Therefore, it is called ''name and form depend on consciousness''.
4. The Divergent Interpretations Between Sutta and Abhidhamma
4.1 The Classification of Nāma in the Suttas
In the Suttas, especially in the Vibhaṅgasutta of Saṃyuttanikāya and Sammādiṭṭhisutta in Majjhimanikāya, nāma is defined as vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro, and rūpa as cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ.
"Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro – idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ. Idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ."
This classification identifies five mental factors (nāma): feeling (vedanā), perception (saññā), volition (cetanā), contact (phasso), and attention (manasikāro). These five factors constitute the mental dimension of the being.
4.2 The Classification of Nāma in the Abhidhamma
In the Abhidhamma, nāma is categorized differently. According to the Vibhaṅgappakaraṇa, nāma comprises the aggregates of feeling (vedanākkhandho), perception (saññākkhandho), and volitional formations (saṅkhārakkhandho).
The difference between nāmadhamma-s found in Sutta and Abhidhamma is clear. In Sutta-s, nāmadharma-s are classified as vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro. In Abhidhamma, nāmahamma-s are vedanākkhandho, saññākkhandho, saṃkhārakkhandho.
4.3 The Rationale for the Divergent Classifications
The confusion made here is on account of the fact that in the Abhidhamma viññāṇas are subsumed under nāma to show the co-relation existing in viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ and in the Sutta-s it has been shown by using one collective noun - viññāṇa.
The three found in Sutta; Cetanā, Phassa, Manasikara are grouped into two; saṅkhāra and viññāṇa. In this case, it is not necessary to say, viññāṇa paccayā nāmarūpaṃ because viññāṇa is given under nāma. Therefore, nāmarūpa means the dependency of each other. Otherwise, two viññāṇa-s are available. This is the Abhidhammic explanation on viññāṇa paccayā nāmarūpaṃ.
As one scholar observes, "The divergence between the Sutta and Abhidhamma classifications reflects the different purposes of these two traditions. The Suttas present the teaching in a practical and accessible manner, while the Abhidhamma systematizes the teaching for analytical purposes."
4.4 The Purpose of Divergent Classifications
Abhidhamma generally identifies as the systematization of the Dhamma. The various teachings found in various places of the Suttapiṭaka are collected and classified into an accepted methodology. When something has to be ordered or compiled or systematized, some sort of discrepancy in categorizing could be detected. Therefore, if we want to define or interpret or understand Buddhist Teachings, the best way is to follow one method, viz. Suttapiṭaka or Abhidammapiṭaka.
Therefore, there is a divergence between Early Buddhist Teachings and Theravāda Abhidhamma on account of the diversity of ideas. As one scholar notes, "The Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions represent different approaches to understanding the Dhamma, with the Suttas providing the original teachings of the Buddha and the Abhidhamma offering a systematic analysis of those teachings."
5. The Problem of Two Viññāṇa-s
5.1 The Apparent Contradiction
The problem of two viññāṇa-s arises from the different classifications of nāma in the Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions. In the Suttas, viññāṇa is treated as a separate category, while in the Abhidhamma, viññāṇa is subsumed under nāma.
This apparent contradiction has been a subject of scholarly discussion. As one scholar notes, "The apparent contradiction between the Sutta and Abhidhamma classifications reflects the different purposes and perspectives of these two traditions, rather than a fundamental inconsistency in the teachings."
5.2 The Resolution in Early Buddhist Teaching
According to the Paṭiccasamuppāda, viññāṇa paccayā nāmarūpaṃ, means because of viññāṇa there arises nāmarūpa. In Vibhaṅga Sutta, this viññāṇa is classified as six fold; eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness.
In the Sutta, Nāma is classified into five and Rūpa into four (or eight) viz., feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention, earth, water, fire, air, (form, sound, smell, taste).
The problem of two viññāṇa-s is already solved with reference to Early Buddhist Teaching. We should understand that there are various classifications for the purpose of the better grasp of the teaching by those individuals the Buddha taught. Those various or variety of classifications should be identified as varying for the purpose of clarifying. We should not mix them up together.
6. The Simile of Two Bundles of Bamboo Poles
6.1 The Simile in the Naḷakalāpasutta
In Naḷakalāpasutta, the relation between name and form, and consciousness is given with the simile of two bundles of bamboo poles. There, one bundle is similar to the bundle of name and form while the other is to the bundle of consciousness.
The simile illustrates the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-form. As one bundle of bamboo poles supports the other, so consciousness supports name-form and name-form supports consciousness. Neither can exist independently of the other.
6.2 The Significance of the Simile
The simile of two bundles of bamboo poles is significant for several reasons:
1. It illustrates the principle of dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda)
2. It demonstrates the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-form
3. It shows that no phenomenon exists independently
4. It provides a visual representation of the psycho-physical composition of the being
As one scholar notes, "The simile of two bundles of bamboo poles provides a vivid illustration of the interdependent nature of consciousness and name-form, showing that the being is a composite of mutually dependent factors."
7. The Methodology for Interpreting Early Buddhist Teachings
7.1 The Importance of Context
When we study Buddhism belonging to the sixth century B.C., we should know the contemporary society, the contemporary teachings, the views of the people living in that contemporary society of the Buddha's time. Then, we could easily guess the exact meaning.
The importance of context cannot be overstated. As one scholar notes, "Understanding the social, cultural, and intellectual context of early Buddhism is essential for interpreting the Buddha's teachings correctly."
7.2 The Need for Consistency
For example, classification of name and form is different from the classification of five aggregates. If we try to classify the five aggregates into two as name and form, it gives the wrong meaning and the learner would be confused when he tries to apply it with another teaching. Therefore, specially, when we are going to compare Early Buddhist Teachings with Abhidhamma we have to be careful.
Consistency in methodology is essential for accurate interpretation. As one scholar observes, "When studying early Buddhist teachings, it is important to maintain consistency in the classification systems used, avoiding the confusion that can arise from mixing different frameworks."
7.3 The Role of Abhidhamma as Systematization
Abhidhamma, generally identifies as the systematization of the Dhamma. The various teachings found in various places of the Suttapiṭaka are collected and classified into an accepted methodology. When something has to be ordered or compiled or systematized, some sort of discrepancy in categorizing could be detected.
As one scholar notes, "The Abhidhamma represents a systematization of the Buddha's teachings, organizing and classifying the various doctrines found in the Suttas into a coherent framework."
8. Conclusion
According to the above detailed explanation as found in the Suttas, the relation between name and form, and consciousness could easily be understood. This is the psycho-physio composition of beings as classified in Early Buddhism.
The co-relation of the name and the form is given in early Buddhist literature as 'nāma-rūpa paccayā viññāṇaṃ'. Nāma, literally meaning that which bends, refers collectively to the three Khandhas: Sensation, Perception and Tendencies (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra). Nāma is also commonly referred to as 'mentality'. The co-relation as shown is that dependent on viññāṇa (consciousness) arises nāma-rūpa (mentality-materiality). The phrase, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ found in Naḷakalāpasutta in Saṃyuttanikāya, means in general that dependent on consciousness arises form and three mental concomitants (feeling, perception, and volitional formations).
The simile of two bundles of bamboo poles illustrates the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-form. As the Naḷakalāpasutta states: "Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ, consciousness depends on name and form. Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ, name and form depend on consciousness."
The divergent interpretations between the Sutta and Abhidhamma traditions reflect the different purposes of these two traditions. The Suttas present the teaching in a practical and accessible manner, while the Abhidhamma systematizes the teaching for analytical purposes. The various classifications should be identified as varying for the purpose of clarifying, and we should not mix them up together.
In conclusion, the early Buddhist interpretation of the psycho-physio combination of the being presents a sophisticated understanding of the interdependence of consciousness, name, and form. This understanding provides the foundation for the Buddhist analysis of the being and its role in the cycle of dependent origination.
9. Bibliography
Primary Sources
Chalmers, R. (Ed.). Majjhima Nikāya I. London: The Pali Text Society, 1977.
Feer, M. L. (Ed.). Samyutta Nikāya Vol. II. London: The Pali Text Society, 1970.
Naḷakalāpasutta. Saṃyuttanikāya.
Paññānanda, Y. (Ed.). Sammohavinodani. Colombo: Simon Hewavitarane Bequest, 1932.
Sammādiṭṭhisutta. Majjhima Nikāya.
Vibhaṅgasutta. Saṃyuttanikāya.
Secondary Sources
Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Samyutta Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000.
Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Jayatilake, K.N. Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1963.
Karunadasa, Y. The Theravada Abhidhamma: Its Inquiry into the Nature of Conditioned Reality. Hong Kong: Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2010.
Wettimuny, R. (Ed.). Buddhism and its Relation to Religion and Science. Colombo: M.D. Gunasena & Co. LTD, 1962.
No comments:
Post a Comment