<p>The <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> appears not mentioned in the early Sutta Pitaka commentary called <em>The Paṭisambhidāmagga</em> or in the <em>Abhidhamma Pitaka</em> (which recognize the stock definitions of Dependent Origination found in MN 9 and SN 12.2). In other words, the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> appears not spoken by the Buddha but, instead, similar to most of the <em>Digha Nikaya</em>, appears to be a later text composed for propagation to &amp; conversion of non-Buddhists. About the <em>Digha Nikaya</em>, the indepedent Australian monk named 'Sujato' said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is no coincidence that these elaborate texts are often addressed to
the <strong>brahmins</strong>, who were the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders of the
time. The brahmins were the custodians of the most sophisticated texts
in ancient India up to this time, the Vedic literature. It seems that
one aim of the Dīgha was to impress such learned men</p>
<p><a href="https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-long-discourses-dhamma-as-literature-and-compilation/11523" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>It follows, most noteably &amp; uniquely, the descriptions of 'namarupa' and 'sense contact (phassa)' in the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> depart significantly from the stock descriptions found in the remainder of the Sutta Pitaka. Following the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an4.180/en/sujato?lang=en&amp;layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=none&amp;highlight=true&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahāpadesa Principle</a>, ordinarily, for faithful Buddhists, the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> would and should be expected to be dismissed. However, over time, the impression is the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> has captured the minds of many <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana?lang=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">puthujjana</a> prone to <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/papa%C3%B1ca?lang=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">papanca</a> (monkey mind; monkey chatter).</p>
<p>In relation to the question, the impression is <em>phassa</em> (sense contact) in the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> is related to the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em>'s <strong>Brahmanistic</strong> definition of 'namarupa'. Unlike the stock suttas (SN 12.2; MN 9), which say: '<em>namarupa is a condition for sense bases; sense bases are a condition for sense contact</em>'; the Mahānidāna Sutta says:</p>
<ul>
<li>‘Name and form are conditions for contact’</li>
</ul>
<p>Per the question asked, the relevant key &amp; unique Pali phases in <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso</p>
</li>
<li><p>nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The term &quot;samphasso&quot; in the Mahānidāna Sutta differs from the stock term &quot;phasso&quot; in SN 12.2; MN 9 &amp; elsewhere. The Pali prefix &quot;sam&quot; (which means the English &quot;co; joint; with&quot;) emphasises a signficant sense contact due to other factors. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>MN 13 says: &quot;<em>But they must face cold and heat, being hurt by <strong>the touch (samphasse)</strong> of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles, and risking death from hunger and thirst</em>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>SN 12.81 says: &quot;<em>When an unlearned ordinary person (puthujjana) is struck by feelings born of <strong>contact with ignorance</strong> (<strong>avijjāsamphassa</strong>jena), craving arises</em>&quot;.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It follows the term &quot;<strong>adhivacanasamphasso</strong>&quot; in the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> does not mean a 'mere simple contact' of the '<em>sense organs, sense objects &amp; consciousness meeting</em>' (as is normally explained in the suttas) but instead means &quot;<strong>labelling contact</strong>&quot; or &quot;<strong>contact <em>with</em> labelling</strong>&quot; of &quot;rūpakāye&quot; (&quot;collection of forms&quot;).</p>
<ul>
<li>To reiterate: adhivacana/labelling + sam/with + phasso/sense contact</li>
</ul>
<p>This above later <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> prhase 'rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso' conforms with the later Brahmanistic <em>psychological</em> description of 'namarupa' (literally: 'naming-forms') found in the later Brahmin <em>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad</em>. Note: the earlier Sutta definitions of namarupa in the earlier SN 12.2 (etc) are redefinitions of the earlier <em>primitive theistic</em> Brahmin notion of namarupa found in the earlier <em>Chandogya Upanishad</em>. Also note: the indepedent Australian monk named 'Sujato' appears wrong in claiming the <em>Brihadaranyaka Upanishad</em> existed before or during the Buddha's lifetime.</p>
<p>Similarly, the second relevant phrase &quot;nāmakāye <strong>paṭighasamphasso</strong>&quot; means &quot;<strong>impingement contact</strong>&quot; or &quot;<strong>contact <em>with</em> impingement</strong>&quot;. The term &quot;<strong>impingement contact</strong>&quot; appears to mean how the external &quot;collection/body of forms&quot; (&quot;rūpakāye&quot;) impinge upon or &quot;strike&quot; the mind (nama) or strike the &quot;group of the mind's mental factors&quot; (&quot;nāmakāye&quot;).</p>
<ul>
<li>To reiterate: paṭigha/impingement + sam/with + phasso/sense contact</li>
</ul>
<p>In conclusion, the more intense term &quot;samphasso&quot; (&quot;joint contact&quot;) appears used in the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> rather than the more simple term &quot;phasso&quot; (&quot;mere contact&quot;) because the <em>Mahānidāna Sutta</em> was a sutta concocted in later times for the brainwashing/bedazzlement of Brahmins &amp; other non-Buddhists in offering a very palpable description of the Brahmin concept of nama-rupa (naming-forms) to impress the Brahmin/Hindu <a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana?lang=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">puthujjana</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-29T05:28:16.977Z
So what is right translation for NamaRupa?  is it mentality-materiality or is it name-and-form ? or something else?
enRaiser
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-29T06:22:55.603Z
the translation of namarupa is not relevant. what is relevant is the defintion
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-29T01:17:46.343Z
2024-04-29T02:41:17.450Z
2024-04-29T02:41:17.450Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that &quot;rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso&quot; and &quot;nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso&quot;.
The meaning of  this?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-28T16:45:02.090Z
Can you link to an online/written source for text you're quoting? It's hard to find, with the spelling you're using.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-28T17:57:27.023Z
Definition of [sampassati](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sampassati) from wisdomlib: `sampassati : (saṃ + dis + a) sees; considers; to be hold.`.
Pycm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-29T04:37:53.733Z
There two parallal understanding on Nama-Rupa goes on. one is Name-and-form (which is objective) and second is mentality-materiality(which iis subjective).  and these lines of DN 15 advocate name-and-form. but the problem is trying to feet name-and-form in DO is tough. for the sake of DO we need mentality-materiality model. because whole DO is subjective. And in fact due to these lines of DN 15 I always remain confused about NamaRupa.
enRaiser
<pratityasamutpada>
Deep meaning of Phassa in the Mahānidāna Sutta?
# Deep meaning of Phassa in the Mahānidāna Sutta?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-04-28)

How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that "rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso" and "nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso".
The meaning of this?

**Tags:** pratityasamutpada

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you link to an online/written source for text you're quoting? It's hard to find, with the spelling you're using.  
> **username_2**: Definition of [sampassati](https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sampassati) from wisdomlib: `sampassati : (saṃ + dis + a) sees; considers; to be hold.`.  
> **username_3**: There two parallal understanding on Nama-Rupa goes on. one is Name-and-form (which is objective) and second is mentality-materiality(which iis subjective).  and these lines of DN 15 advocate name-and-form. but the problem is trying to feet name-and-form in DO is tough. for the sake of DO we need mentality-materiality model. because whole DO is subjective. And in fact due to these lines of DN 15 I always remain confused about NamaRupa.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-04-29. Score: 0

The *Mahānidāna Sutta* appears not mentioned in the early Sutta Pitaka commentary called *The Paṭisambhidāmagga* or in the *Abhidhamma Pitaka* (which recognize the stock definitions of Dependent Origination found in MN 9 and SN 12.2). In other words, the *Mahānidāna Sutta* appears not spoken by the Buddha but, instead, similar to most of the *Digha Nikaya*, appears to be a later text composed for propagation to & conversion of non-Buddhists. About the *Digha Nikaya*, the indepedent Australian monk named 'Sujato' said:

> It is no coincidence that these elaborate texts are often addressed to
> the **brahmins**, who were the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders of the
> time. The brahmins were the custodians of the most sophisticated texts
> in ancient India up to this time, the Vedic literature. It seems that
> one aim of the Dīgha was to impress such learned men
>
> [The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-long-discourses-dhamma-as-literature-and-compilation/11523)

It follows, most noteably & uniquely, the descriptions of 'namarupa' and 'sense contact (phassa)' in the *Mahānidāna Sutta* depart significantly from the stock descriptions found in the remainder of the Sutta Pitaka. Following the [Mahāpadesa Principle](https://suttacentral.net/an4.180/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=none&highlight=true&script=latin), ordinarily, for faithful Buddhists, the *Mahānidāna Sutta* would and should be expected to be dismissed. However, over time, the impression is the *Mahānidāna Sutta* has captured the minds of many [puthujjana](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana?lang=en) prone to [papanca](https://suttacentral.net/define/papa%C3%B1ca?lang=en) (monkey mind; monkey chatter).

In relation to the question, the impression is *phassa* (sense contact) in the *Mahānidāna Sutta* is related to the *Mahānidāna Sutta*'s **Brahmanistic** definition of 'namarupa'. Unlike the stock suttas (SN 12.2; MN 9), which say: '*namarupa is a condition for sense bases; sense bases are a condition for sense contact*'; the Mahānidāna Sutta says:

* ‘Name and form are conditions for contact’

Per the question asked, the relevant key & unique Pali phases in *Mahānidāna Sutta* are:

* rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso
* nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso

The term "samphasso" in the Mahānidāna Sutta differs from the stock term "phasso" in SN 12.2; MN 9 & elsewhere. The Pali prefix "sam" (which means the English "co; joint; with") emphasises a signficant sense contact due to other factors. For example:

* MN 13 says: "*But they must face cold and heat, being hurt by **the touch (samphasse)** of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles, and risking death from hunger and thirst*.
* SN 12.81 says: "*When an unlearned ordinary person (puthujjana) is struck by feelings born of **contact with ignorance** (**avijjāsamphassa**jena), craving arises*".

It follows the term "**adhivacanasamphasso**" in the *Mahānidāna Sutta* does not mean a 'mere simple contact' of the '*sense organs, sense objects & consciousness meeting*' (as is normally explained in the suttas) but instead means "**labelling contact**" or "**contact *with* labelling**" of "rūpakāye" ("collection of forms").

* To reiterate: adhivacana/labelling + sam/with + phasso/sense contact

This above later *Mahānidāna Sutta* prhase 'rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso' conforms with the later Brahmanistic *psychological* description of 'namarupa' (literally: 'naming-forms') found in the later Brahmin *Brihadaranyaka Upanishad*. Note: the earlier Sutta definitions of namarupa in the earlier SN 12.2 (etc) are redefinitions of the earlier *primitive theistic* Brahmin notion of namarupa found in the earlier *Chandogya Upanishad*. Also note: the indepedent Australian monk named 'Sujato' appears wrong in claiming the *Brihadaranyaka Upanishad* existed before or during the Buddha's lifetime.

Similarly, the second relevant phrase "nāmakāye **paṭighasamphasso**" means "**impingement contact**" or "**contact *with* impingement**". The term "**impingement contact**" appears to mean how the external "collection/body of forms" ("rūpakāye") impinge upon or "strike" the mind (nama) or strike the "group of the mind's mental factors" ("nāmakāye").

* To reiterate: paṭigha/impingement + sam/with + phasso/sense contact

In conclusion, the more intense term "samphasso" ("joint contact") appears used in the *Mahānidāna Sutta* rather than the more simple term "phasso" ("mere contact") because the *Mahānidāna Sutta* was a sutta concocted in later times for the brainwashing/bedazzlement of Brahmins & other non-Buddhists in offering a very palpable description of the Brahmin concept of nama-rupa (naming-forms) to impress the Brahmin/Hindu [puthujjana](https://suttacentral.net/define/puthujjana?lang=en).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: So what is right translation for NamaRupa?  is it mentality-materiality or is it name-and-form ? or something else?  
> **username_4**: the translation of namarupa is not relevant. what is relevant is the defintion  

---

