Nāma-Rūpa
IT is known that, in Hindu tradition, individuality is considered as constituted by the union of two elements, or more exactly of two collections of elements, which are respectively designated by the terms nāma and rūpa, literally meaning 'name' and 'form'; and generally joined in the composite expression nāma-rūpa, which, thus, includes the whole individuality. Nāma corresponds to the 'essential' aspect of this individuality, and rüpa to its 'substantial' aspect: it is, therefore, almost equivalent to Aristotle's Eldos and Vin, or to what the scholastics called 'form' and 'matter'. But, here we must beware of a fairly irksome imperfection of Western terminology: 'form', indeed, is then equivalent to nāma, while, when one takes the same word in its usual meaning, it is on the contrary rüpa that one is obliged to translate as 'form'. The word 'matter' also having its drawbacks, for reasons that we have already explained on other occasions and which we will not repeat now, we find preferable the use of the terms 'essence' and 'substance', naturally taken in a relative sense when they are capable of applying to individuality.
From another somewhat different point of view, nāma also corresponds to the subtle part of individuality, and rüpa to its corporeal or sensible part. But, basically, this distinction coincides with the preceding one, for it is precisely these two subtle and
corporeal parts which, in the totality of individuality, play, in sum, the role of 'essence' and 'substance' in relation to each other. In all cases, when being is liberated from the individual condition, one may say that it is by this very fact 'beyond name and form', since these two complementary terms are properly constituents of individuality as such. And it should be understood that it is a question hereof a being that has passed to a supraindividual state, for, in another individual state, being still 'formal', it would rediscover necessarily the equivalent of nāma and rūpa, although the 'form' would no longer then be corporeal as it is in the human state.
Yet one should also say that nāma is capable of a certain transposition when it no longer correlates to rūpa; this emerges notably when it is said that when survives when a man dies in nāma. [3] It is true that one could first think that it is only a question of extracorporeal extensions of human individuality. This way of seeing things is, moreover, acceptable in a certain sense, in so much as rūpa identifies with the body. There would then be no real transposition, strictly speaking, but the subtle part of individuality would simply continue to be designated as nāma after the disappearance of the corporeal part. It could even still be, thus, when this nāma is said to be 'endless', for this can only correspond to cyclic perpetuity. A given cycle can also be said to be 'endless', in the sense that its end analogically rejoins its beginning, as one sees notably by the example of the annual cycle (samvatsara). [4] However, it is evidently no longer the same when it is specified that the being that survives as nāma has passed to the world of the devas, [5] that is to an 'angelic' or supraindividual state. Such a state being 'non-formal', one can no longer speak of rūpa, while nāma is transposed into a higher meaning, which is possible by virtue of the supra-sensible character which is attached to it even in its ordinary and individual sense. In this case, the being is still 'beyond form', but it would also be 'beyond name' only if it reached the unconditioned state,
and not only a state that, however elevated, still belongs to the domain of manifested existence. We may note that it is doubtless this that is signified, in Western theological doctrines, by the conception according to which angelic nature (devatva) is pure 'form' (which may be rendered in Sanskrit as śuddha-nāma), that is to say, not bound to 'matter'. Indeed, taking into account the peculiarities of scholastic language pointed out above, this is exactly the same as saying that it is a question of what we call a 'non-formal' state. [6]
In this transposition, nāma is still equivalent to the Greek Eldos but this time understood in the Platonic sense rather than the Aristotelean sense: it is the 'idea', not in the psychological and 'subjective' sense given to it by the moderns, but in the transcendent sense of 'archetype', that is to say, as reality of the 'intelligible world', of which the 'sensible world' only offers a reflection or a shadow. [7] One can, moreover, in this regard, take the 'sensible world' here as symbolically representing the whole domain of formal manifestation, the 'intelligible world' being that of non-formal, manifestation, that is the world of devas. It is also in this sense that one must understand the application of the term nāma to the 'ideal' model that the artist must first contemplate internally, and from which he afterwards makes his work real in sensible form, which is properly rūpa, so that, when the 'idea' is, thus, 'incorporated', the work of art may be regarded, just like the individual being, as a combination of nāma and rūpa. [8] There is, thus, so to say, a 'descent' (avatāra) of the 'idea' in the formal domain. It is not, of course, that the 'idea' in itself is affected by this, but rather that it is reflected in a certain sensible form which proceeds from it and to which it somehow gives life. We could still say, in this regard, that the 'idea' in itself corresponds to the 'soul'. This simile of the work of art allows us to understand in a more precise way the true nature of the relationship existing between the 'archetype' and the individual, and, consequently, of the relationship of the two
meanings of the term nāma, according to whether it is applied in the 'angelic' domain or the human domain. That is to say, whether it designates, on the one hand, the informal or 'spiritual' principle of being, which one can also call its pure 'essence', or on the other hand, the subtle part of individuality, which is 'essence', only in a completely relative sense and in relation to its corporeal part, but which, by virtue of this, represents 'essence' in the individual domain and can, therefore, be considered here as a reflection of the true transcendent 'essence'.
It now remains to explain the symbolism that is inherent in the very terms nāma and rūpa, and which allows us to go from their literal sense, or their acceptation as 'name' and 'form', to the applications that we just viewed. The relationship can appear more obvious, at first sight, for 'form' than for 'name', perhaps because, in what concerns this 'form', we, briefly, do not leave the sensible order, to which the ordinary meaning of words relates directly. At least, it is, thus, when it has to do with human existence. And should it have to do with another individual state, it would be sufficient to remember that there must necessarily be a certain correspondence between the constitution of the being manifest in this state, and of the individual human, for the reason that it is always a 'formal' state that is in question. On the other hand, clearly to understand the true significance of nāma, we must call upon less commonly widespread notions, and must remember primarily that, as we have already explained elsewhere, the 'name' of a being, even taken literally is an effective expression of its 'essence'. This 'name' is, moreover, also a 'number' in the Pythagorean and Kabbalistic sense, and one knows that, even simply from the point of view of historical filiation, the conception of the Platonic 'idea' that we spoke of a moment ago, is closely connected to the 'idea' of the Pythagorean 'number'.
This is not all: it is important to note again that the 'name' in the literal sense, is properly a sound, and, therefore, belongs to
the auditory order, whilst 'form' belongs to the visual order. Here the 'eye' (or sight) is, therefore, taken as symbol of sensible experience while the 'ear' (or hearing) is taken as symbol of the 'angelic' or intuitive intellect. [9] And it is equally, thus, that the 'revelation', or direct intuition of intelligible truths is represented as an 'audition' (hence, the traditional significance of the word śruti). [10] It naturally follows that, in themselves, hearing and sight equally rise from the sensible domain. But, for their symbolic transposition, when they are, thus, placed in relation to each other, there is to be viewed a certain hierarchy between them, which results from the order of development of the elements, and consequently of the sensible qualities that relate to them respectively. The auditory quality, relating to ether, which is the first of the elements, is more 'primordial' than the visual quality, which relates to fire. And one sees that, thence, the meaning of the term nāma is bound in a direct way to traditional ideas, which have in Hindu doctrine a really fundamental character. We refer to the 'primordiality of sound', and the 'perpetuity of the Veda'.