Identity and Experience_Hamilton_1996

Wmndhas, leaving niima to represent the remaining three mental khan&a.s of
vedanii, saiirii and samh-ra. As well as stating that nima is three artipfindhas,
he defines rUpa in terms of the four elements.34 The wha Nikga passage
where nimariipa and vin"n"iina are said to be mutually conditioning, which has
also been referred to in chapter v, is one in which the paticcasamuppida
formula begins with vin"n"iia as the condition for the arising of ncimariipa,
omitting arnjii and sa?nkhiira." It may well be that vin"n"@and niimariipa are
stated to be mutually conditioning so that independent existence cannot be
projected onto zritn"igu as the first link in the chain. But to a reader of this
text, or of any other which states their mutual dependency, who is aware
that elsewhere nZmariipa is explained as the four khandhas other than vin'iiciy,
the passage suggests that the mutually conditioned pair represent the
individual as a whole, particularly since it also states that together they
experience samscira.
The only definition given of nimariipa in the Sutta does not explicitly
refer to the Wlandhas, but it is given in a way which has been interpreted as
implying that translating nrima as 'mind' is 'appropriate. Rzipa is again defined
as the four elements (and their derivitives) and niima is said to consist of
feeling, apperception, volition, sensory contact and attenti~n.~~ VedanG?
sattii, cetanii, fh.ssa and manasikira might all be said to be 'mental' rather
than 'physical'. In the Papatcaszidani, the commentary on the Majhima
N.iknra, an analysis according to the khandh is projected onto this definition,
so san"n"is said to stand for the san"n"&andha, vedanii for the uedandhanndha, and
cetanii, pahassa and manasiEra collectively represent the ~amkhiirakW1andha.~' The
canonical passages where this definition of nima is found are dealing with
the paaticcasdmuppzda formula. As zrin"n"iipz is the condition for the arising of
niimariipa, the definition of niima given in the commentary ensures that all
five khandhas are explicitly included in this passage, thus encompassing the
mental and bodily faculties of the individual as a whole.
From all of the foregoing it is perhaps unsurprising that scholars have
translated niimarzipa as 'mind and body'. It is significant, however, that
nowhere in the Sutta P$aka is nima explicitly defined in terms of the
ariipakkhandhas, or in terms of khandhas at all. Only one definition of nima is
given, that it is vedami, satiiii, cetdnii, phasa and manaxikEra, as mentioned in the
last paragraph. Rzipa is consistently defined in terms of the four mahcibhiiti
and their derivatives, but only in those contexts which are explaining the
human being in terms of the five khandhas is it specifically referred to as the
nipakkhandha. In the discussion above on the nipamandha we saw that parts
of the khandha are either not visible or their visibility is unknown, unlike riipa
as visible object of the sense 'eye'. And because as a khandha it is associated
specifically with the human body, we concluded 'khanttha of the body' to be
an appropriate definition. With regard to the term riipa as part of the compound
ncimariipa, there is no suggestion in canonical material that it is limited
by a criterion of visibility. But the compound is almost exclusively found