When she’s serving those guys they say “where are you even from… Pretty cocky from a foreigner” and I was curious

I was watching a talk between Bhante Punnaji and Bhante Vimalaramsi. Bhante Punnaji said very strongly that 'rupa' did not mean 'form' but 'image' (See video, 17:45 onwards). Then there are other translators that translate rupa as fine-material. Some translate it as 'with colour'. Some translate it as 'material'.

The consequence of this is that I fail to understand the meaning of rupajhana, and the difference between this and arupa realms. There is no question that the "a-" prefix is a negation, meaning 'not', but what exactly does 'rupa' really mean in ancient Pali?

The reason why I ask this is because I was contemplating on the 31 realms of existence one day, and could not understand why humans, having a body of form, which is supposed a rupa-kaya, is still classified by the Buddha under the kama-loka (desire realm), instead of the rupa-loka (rupa realm) along with those other devas.

Animals too, have a form body. If we consider devas to be made of finer material, then the devas above humans within the kama-loka also have subtle bodies. So what exactly is the difference between those in kama-loka and those in rupa-loka?

This has implications because if I don't understand rupa, then how can I really understand the difference between the normal state of a human being and being in a rupajhana?

Clarification would be really appreciated.

Curious to see how this community responds to Bhante Punnaji’s translation of “rupa” as image. He speaks Singhalese (which is closer to Pali than most other languages) and points out this to this day rupa still means image. And based on this, he claims that the five aggregates are the constituents of the process of perception, the realization of which (from the inside) breaks the delusion of subject (self) and object (world) whose relationship generates existence, birth and death, and dukkha. Does this resonate with your experience of the Dhamma?

I’ve been interested in the formal definition of rupa and kalapa. Often, we hear the suttas refer to the “form aggregate.” I tend to see form as shape with qualities. Something that could be conceivable as non-material form in potential. Like a mathematical relation of parts that can be represented as an equation. Triangles are forms, etc.

On the other hand we this concept of substance, “matter.” It is that which can be formed or shaped. Obviously, neither is observable in of itself. Indeed, the five clinging aggregates are not easily untangled from each other either.

I wonder if there is an ontological valance here? That would align “form” more to “being.” Every time “form” and the “eye” are discussed, I see it as pure phenomenology. A comment on the repeatability of experience and a pointer to mind as an active element that does not seem to break down into anything more ultimate. “Consciousness”? We are made of parramatta realities that only another paramatha dhamma apprehends, “mind.” Are there dhamatas that are forerunners of mind?

What do you think? How off base am I?