Path Press

Nāmarūpapaccayā phasso’ti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tadānanda,
imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathā nāmarūpapaccayā phasso. Yehi,
Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi nāmakā-yassa
paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu
asati api nu kho rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso paññāyethā ti?

No hetaṃ, bhante.

Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi
rūpakāyassa paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu
tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu tesu uddesesu asati, api nu kho nāmakāye
paṭighasamphasso paññāyethā ti?

No hetaṃ, bhante.

Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi
nāmakāyassa ca rūpakāyassa ca paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu ākāresu
tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu tesu uddesesu asati, api
nu kho adhivacanasamphasso vā paṭighasamphasso vā paññāyethā ti?

No hetaṃ, bhante.

Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi
nāma-rūpassa paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu
tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu tesu uddesesu asati, api nu kho phasso
paññā-yethā ti?

No hetaṃ, bhante.

Tasmātihānanda, eseva hetu etaṃ nidānaṃ esa samudayo esa paccayo
phassassa, yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ.

-‘With name-&-matter as condition, contact’, so it was said: how
it is, Ānanda, that with name-&-matter as condition there is contact
should be seen in this manner. Those tokens, Ānanda, those marks,
those signs, those indications by which the name-body is described,—they
being absent, would designation-contact be manifest in the matter-body?

-No indeed, lord.

-Those tokens, Ānanda, those marks, those signs, those indications
by which the matter-body is described,—they being absent, would resistance-contact
be manifest in the name-body?

-No indeed, lord.

-Those tokens, Ānanda, those marks, those signs, those indications
by which the name-body and the matter-body are described,—they being
absent, would either designation-contact or resistance-contact be
manifest?

-No indeed, lord.

-Those tokens, Ānanda, those marks, those signs, those indications
by which name-&-matter is described,—they being absent, would contact
be manifest?

-No indeed, lord.

-Therefore, Ānanda, just this is the reason, this is the occasion,
this is the arising, this is the condition of contact, that is to
say name-&-matter.

1. ‘Matter’ is required for ‘name’ to be present. If there would not be that which is ‘named’, ‘name’ would not be able to arise. If on the other hand, ‘name’ is absent, ‘matter’ would simply be inconceivable. Thus, there is no ‘name’ without ‘matter’ and there is no ‘matter’ without ‘name’, hence-name-&-matter. In this way ‘name’ designates the resistance, and ‘matter’ resists the designation. Without ‘name'(-body), there would not be any designation manifested in ‘matter'(-body), but without ‘matter'(-body), there would not be any resistance manifested in the ‘name'(-body). It is these respective manifestations of ‘designation’ and ‘resistance’ that are puthujjana’s problem.
2. With name-&-matter, he assumes that it is this ‘matter’ that is designated. Through that assumption, designation manifests in that matter body¹. In this way one’s ‘matter’ is designated-one is contacted.
With name-&-matter, he assumes that it is this ‘name’ that is resisted. Through that assumption, resistance manifests in that name-body. In this way one’s ‘name’ is resisted-one is contacted.

He assumes that it is this ‘matter’ that is designated.
He assumes it is the same ‘matter’ that is designated and is the condition for ‘name’; he assumes it is a different ‘matter’ that is designated and is the condition for ‘name’; He assumes it is both-same-&-different matter that is designated and is the condition for ‘name’; He assumes it is neither-same-nor-different ‘matter’ that is designated and is the condition for ‘name’. Either way-the assumption is there.

That which resists him he designates as the same, different, both-same-&-different, or neither same-nor-different, as that because of which ‘name’ is there. The designation manifests in this ‘matter’.²
Thus, he designates (contacts) his resistance. Contact is there.

He assumes that it is this ‘name’ that is resisted.
He assumes it is the same ‘name’ that is resisted and is the condition for ‘matter’; He assumes it is a different ‘name’ that is resisted and is the condition for ‘matter’; He assumes it is both-same-&-different ‘name’ that is resisted and is the condition for ‘matter’; He assumes it is neither-same-nor-different ‘name’ that is resisted and is the condition for ‘matter’; Either way-the assumption is there.

That which is designated he resists as the same, different, both-same-&-different, or neither same-nor-different, as that because of which ‘matter’ is there. The resistance manifests in this ‘name’.³
Thus, he resists (contacts) his designation. Contact is there.

3. Cf. Mūḷapariyāya Sutta, MN 1:
Pathaviṃ pathavito sañjānāti; pathaviṃ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṃ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṃ meti maññati, pathaviṃ abhinandati. taṃ kissa hetu? `apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.
From earth, he has a percept of earth; having had from earth a percept, he conceives [that to be] earth, he conceives [that to be] in earth, he conceives [that to be] out of earth, he conceives earth as ‘mine’, he delights earth. Why is that? He has not fully understood it, I say…
What a puthujjana has to realise is that regardless of what he perceives, it is always his perception that is perceived. Whether it is ‘earth’, ‘water’, ‘fire’, ‘air’ or any other thing that MN 1 mentions, all one will ever perceive (puthujjana and arahant alike) is one’s own perception of that ‘matter’.⁴ This is saying nothing else than ‘matter’ is and will always be outside of one’s reach, outside of that which has appeared.⁵ Perception is that which is perceived, but perception would not be possible if there is no matter to be perceived; on the other hand matter would be inconceivable if perception was indiscernible. If one thinks “it is because of the matter, that perception is there”, that thought is perceived, which means that that which is ‘matter’ in that thought is also perceived. But since it is only perception that can be perceived, that ‘matter’ which is perceived in that thought, cannot be that ‘matter’ which cannot be perceived, since it is perceived. In this way, from ‘matter’, a puthujjana has a percept of ‘matter’, which he conceives to be that same ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter. Or he conceives it to be different ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter. Or he conceives it to be both-same &-different ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter. Or he conceives it to be neither-same-nor-different ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter. Either way ‘matter’ is conceived. He becomes responsible for the manifestation of the conceiving of that ‘matter’, he “makes” that ‘matter’ exist.⁶ That “creation” is his-thus it is ‘my‘ ‘matter’.⁷ But, since that ‘my matter’ is conceived as that ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter, then that percept[ion]
too becomes ‘my perception’.⁸ The same goes for one’s feelings and intentions. They are all conceived as mine. Since the puthujjana’s whole experience is his, he thinks he himself is-the view of Self exists.⁹
4. When consciousness does not indicate any ‘me’ or ‘mine’, that ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter, does not manifest itself in that perception (or feeling, or intention)-it does not manifest itself in ‘name’. Thus, in perception there is only perception, i.e. in the seen there is only that which is seen, namely-the seen (and so on for all the senses).¹⁰ One ceases to “perceive ‘matter”‘; one knows¹¹ such a thing is impossible or inconceivable,¹² one simply understands¹³: there is matter, there is perception (or feeling, or intention), there is (non-indicative) consciousness. One understands-there are five “heaps”.¹⁴ Since one understands them, one ceases to assume them. With the cessation of assumption, that which they were assumed to be, ceases-bhava comes to an end.

Bhikkhu Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli

Footnotes:

¹upādānapaccayā bhavo.

²‘Name’ assumes existence in ‘matter’-‘name’ exists.

³‘Matter’ finds footing in ‘name’-‘matter’ exists.Cf. DN 11.

⁴

It would be as wrong to say ‘a feeling is perceived’ as it would ‘a percept is felt’ (which mix up saññā and vedanā); but it is quite in order to say ‘a feeling, a percept, (that is, a felt thing, a perceived thing) is cognized’, which simply means that a feeling or a percept is present (as, indeed, they both are in all experience—see Majjhima v,3 (M.i,293)). Strictly speaking, then, what is cognized is nāmarūpa, whereas what is perceived (or felt) is saññā (or vedanā), i.e. only nāma. This distinction can be shown grammatically. Vijānāti, to cognize, is active voice in sense (taking an objective accusative): consciousness cognizes a phenomenon (nāmarūpa); consciousness is always consciousness of something. Sañjānāti, to perceive, (or vediyati, to feel) is middle voice in sense (taking a cognate accusative): perception perceives [a percept] (or feeling feels [a feeling]). Thus we should say ‘a blue thing (= a blueness), a painful thing (= a pain), is cognized’, but ‘blue is perceived’ and ‘pain is felt’. (In the Suttas generally, due allowance is to be made for the elasticity in the common usage of words. But in certain passages, and also in one’s finer thinking, stricter definition may be required.)-Ñāṇavīra Thera, Clearing the Path, 2010, p. 92.

⁵Cf. Ñāṇavīra Thera, Seeking The Path, 2010, p. 40, §§17-18: “[Four mahābhutā]…will always be just below our feet.”

⁶Thus, ‘matter’ can never be perceived, but it can “find footing” in that which is perceived (or felt, or intended).

⁷He delights in his own creation, because it is his own creation.

⁸If one is not to conceive that ‘matter’ because of which there is a percept of matter, one would not conceive oneself as that because of which there is a perceiver and conceiver of the world. Cf. SN 35.116:

The eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind… is that in the
world by which one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world.

Also, cf. Ñāṇavīra Thera, op.cit. p. 298:

And when shall we ‘not be that by which’? … the Buddha tells us: it is when, for us, in the seen there shall be just the seen, and so with the heard, the sensed, and the cognized. And when in the seen is there just the seen? When the seen is no longer seen as ‘mine’ (etaṃ mama) or as ‘I’ (eso’ham asmi) or as ‘my self’ (eso me attā): in brief, when there is no longer, in connexion with the senses, the conceit ‘I am’, by which ‘I am a conceiver of the world’.

⁹That’s how the sense of the ‘mine’ leads to the sense of ‘Self’.

¹⁰Cf. Bāhiya Sutta, Ud. 10/8.

¹¹“Wisdom is to be developed…”-MN 43.

¹²If it were fundamentally subject to one’s conceivings, freedom from conceivings would not be possible. Cf. my Notes on AN 1.51.

¹³“…consciousness is to be understood”.-MN 43.

¹⁴Simultaneous, superimposed, utterly indifferent to each other.