Resistance and Designation (Notes on DN 15)

an essay

by Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero

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.

3. Cf. Mūḷapariyāya Sutta, MN 1:

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.