I'm looking to translate into English the name Namkha Chenpo Dewachen Gompa. Any idea of its precise meaning? Thanks a lot!

The common sense-objects are light, sound, smells, tastes, touch, and ideas. The origin must be form. What is form? > The four great elements and the form derived from the four great > elements: this is called form. Thus we assume the sense-objects are derivatives of the four great elements, but what is more? Given the often anomalous classification of intellect as mind or consciousness, I even wonder if its counterpart, idea, is form at all. Is there further elucidation on the matter, like that of the Sankhya school?

In the book *In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from Pali Canon* by Bhikku Bodhi, I read: > When there is no *name-and-form*, consciousness does not come to be; with the cessation of *name-and-form* comes the cessation of consciousness. What is the meaning of *name-and-form*; whose name and what form? How is the arising and cessation of consciousness linked with it?

I recall it being said by the Buddha that the formless - jhana perhaps - is better than the formed. in which sutta does this say this? I remember reading that, but I can no longer find the text

Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there also have a form of some kind. Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama were most probably born in formless Brahma realms after their death. But Buddha didn't visit Alara-Kalama and Uddakka-Ramaputta which means that they couldn't understand the Dhamma which must have been a problem with the senses or something similar (My first question) because they already had superior mental ability to understand the Dhamma (MN 21 ), > Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little > dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He > will quickly understand this Dhamma. Dust here implies the 5 hindrances . > This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had > little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? > He will quickly understand this Dhamma. I would like to get an answer to either or both (if possible) of the below questions, **Question 1**: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama. **Question 2**: What is the difference in form between the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

> According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) > and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through > which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the > Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles. The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana: > Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory > sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual > sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant, > unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal > sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the > associated consciousness. So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana. Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned? ---------- I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same? I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, *place*, ever be impermanent *independent* of the body? Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just ***nothingness***, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

How are "all types of beings originally formless"? - p100 The Sutra of Hui-neng, Grand Master of Zen: With Hui-neng's Commentary on the Diamond Sutra I'm asking because this page [quoting His Highness the Dalai Lama] says > Immediately thereupon, the intermediate state begins—except for those > reborn in the formless realms of infinite space, infinite > consciousness, "nothingness" or peak of cyclic existence, for whom the > new life begins immediately upon death If we all are originally formless, then our original nature has no intermediate state, while our unenlightened state does. How can that be?

As the title indicates, I don't know how the mind "picks" which sensation to focus on. Considering the huge amount of sense-data being received by the mind each moment, which condition directs consciousness to alight in a specific range of the whole set of sense-data? I've read that kamma influences where will the "seed" of consciousness grow. But what does this mean, exactly? In some sources, I've read that "past" namarupa gives to consciousness the content to be known in the present, which allows contact to arise. If that's the case, can we say that where we've placed our attention (as a factor of nama in namarupa) in the past determines where will consciousness will alight in each moment? EDIT: Some may argue that the intensity of an stimulus might be the main factor in determining where will condition alight. But what will happen when multiple sense-objects have a similar "strength", or when such "strength" is not objectively defined? For instance, what happens when someone is listening to some music? A singer attention might "fall" on the qualities of the singer's voice in the song; a bassist may auomatically pay attention to the bass and the technique behind the player; and a "casual" listener might just hear and pay attention to the overall song. In sum, I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana. Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!