Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c11.s3.t2: 2. Nâmarûpa

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c11.s3.t2

Language
English

2. Nâmarûpa

c11.s3.t2.1

To the observations made in note 2, p. 23, regarding the terminus Nâmarûpa, i.e. “Name and form,” or “Name and corporeal form,” I desire to here add a few of the more important passages of the texts.

c11.s3.t2.2

The expression Nâmarûpa is known to have had its origin in the Brâhmana and Âranyaka period of Indian literature. In the name of beings the wisdom of those ages finds, as is natural, specially deep mysteries. Jâratkârava Ârtabhâga says :* “Yâjnavalkya! what is that which does not forsake a man when he dies?” And Yâjnavalkya answers: “The name! An infinite thing in truth is the name, infinite (innumerable) are all the Gods; infinite fulness he attains thereby.” Thus the name of beings or of things is represented as a self-existing power beside their external form. Name and form are the two “monster powers” of the Brahma, by which it has got at the worlds or into the worlds. When the universe lay in chaotic confusion, by “name and form” clearness was created; therefore they say, when they wish to make a man knowable: “he is called so-and-so; he looks so-and-so.” “In this this universe consists, in form and in name”—or, as it is said on another occasion: “A triad is this world: name, form, act.”†

c11.s3.t2.3

The cessation of the individual being, the attainment of the everlasting goal presents itself as well to the Brahman as to the Buddhist method of thought and speech as the cessation of “name and form.” He who has attained the highest wisdom, unites with the universal spirit, “delivered from name and form, as the streams, the flowing streams, enter into rest in the sea, leaving name‡ and form behind;” thus we read in the “Mundakopanishad.”§ And in the “Suttanipâta”|| it is said: “What thou hast asked after, Ajita, that will I tell thee; where name and form cease without a residuum: by the cessation of consciousness,** there that ceases.”

c11.s3.t2.4

As regards the idea of “name” in this connection, it is to be understood in its literal meaning, when in the Mahânidâna sutta††

c11.s3.t2.5

* “Çat. Br.” xiv, 2, 11. † “Çat. Br.” xi, 2, 3, 3 fg.; xiv, 4, 2, 15; 4, 4, 1 fg. Cf. the Nrisimha-tâpanîya Upanishad, “Ind. Studien,” ix, 134. ‡ It is clear, that here “name” is to be taken quite in the literal sense, cf. “Cullavagga,” lx, 1, 4. § P. 322 of the edition in the “Bibl. India.”

c11.s3.t2.6

|| Fol. ghau’ of the Phayre MS.; Fausböll, p. 191.

c11.s3.t2.7

∗∗ I.e., the Nirvâna, cf. supra, p. 266 seq. †† P. 253, 255, ed. “Grimblot.”

c11.s3.t2.8

the attainability of the form-world through the “contact by means of naming” is traced back to the existence of the “name-world,” and when it is there said, “that the domain of naming, the domain of expression, the domain of manifestation,” extends as far as “name and form together with consciousness.” As a rule, however, another meaning of “name” meets us in the Buddhist texts, so far as this idea appears in connection with that of form. Thus already in the “Sutta Pitaka” (“Sammâditthi Suttanta” in the “Majjhima Nikâya,” fol. khu of the Turnour MSS.), where a reply is given to the question regarding the definition of Nâmarûpa: vedanâ saññâ cetenâ phasso manasikâro idam vuccat’ âvuso nâmarûpam,* cattâri ca mahâbhûtâni catunnam ca mahâbhûtânam upâdâya rûpam idam vuccat’ âvuso rûpam.—Similarly in the Abhidhamma texts. “Vibhaṅga,” fol. ci’ (Phayre MS.): tattha katamam viññânapaccayâ nâmarûpam? atthi nâmam atthi rûpam. tattha katamam nâmam? vedanakkhandho saññâkkhandho samkhârakkhandho idam vuccati nâmam. tattha katamam rûpam? cattâro ca mahâbhûtâ catunnam ca mahâbhûtânam upâdâya rûpam idam vuccati rûpam iti’ idañ ca nâmam idam vuccati viññânapaccayâ nâmarûpam.—“Nettippakarana,” fol. kû’ (Phayre MS.): tattha ye pañc’ upâdânakkhandhâ idam nâmarûpam. tattha ye phassapañcamakâ dhamm↠idam nâmam, yâni pañcindriyâni rûpâni idam rûpam. tadubhayam nâmarûpam viññânasampayuttam.

c11.s3.t2.9

How this explanation of Nâma has arisen, is evident. The category of “form” or “corporeity” (rûpa), like that of consciousness, is to be met as well in the combination “name and form together with consciousness,” as in the system of the five khandhas “form, sensations, perceptions, conformations, consciousness.” Now the very natural conceit suggested itself to identify the two series of notions, which had actually arisen wholly independently of each other, having the members “form” and “consciousness” in common, and thus the three khandhas “sensations, perceptions, conformations (Samkhârâ = Cetanâ)" of the one series remained over for the category of "name" in the other series.

c11.s3.t2.10

∗ It appears to me we should read nâmam. † I.e., the five categories mentioned in the passage quoted from the Sammâditthi Sutta, among which phassa is named, not indeed in the last, but in the fourth place?

c11.s3.t2.11

Cf. further "Milinda Pañha," p. 49; Burnouf, "Intr." 501 seq.

Linked texts (10)