Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm

What prompted me to make this thread is the following post and the generally seemingly liberal use of the expression Papanca on this board;
pegembara wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:37 am
Something is experienced. That is categorised as sound(I hear ...). That is identified as voice/siren/noise etc. Then follows commentary(papanca) which is almost entirely mind made. A piece of paper becomes money, a branch becomes a club, sounds become hurtful words etc.
What i want to answer is whether or not identifying The Heard as noise, voice or siren is papanca.

I will try arriving at an answer by reconciling several excerpts as follows;
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."[2]
This seems clear enough but there are some questions that arise:
1) Does the Seen refer to the Seen Form or the Verb Seeing
2) Does the Sensed refer to Vedana (Feelings) and i think it does given the next Sutta;
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Now i will arrive at an answer for the First question by reconciling it with Satipatthana instruction and taking the assumption regarding the 1st point for granted.

Given that Bahiya was instructed to let the cognized only be cognized, in light of the following excerpt;
Consciousness

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
I assume that the Sense Impressions would be cognized as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral as that would be in line with the Satipatthana practice and that this would be the inferred instruction in case of the Sensed, and "the cognition of sensory impression dependent on Body & Tacticle Sensations" in particular;
"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings in & of themselves? There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling.' When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling.' When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.'
So here i assume that in regards to letting Sensed only be Sensed and the Cognized only being the Cognized one should be noting "I am feeling a pleasant feeling" in case of the arising of a feeling cognized as pleasant,
The other senses are cognizable as well;
The Blessed One said: "Sunakkhatta, there are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These are the five strings of sensuality.
In light of what was inferred in regards to the Sensed i think that one should be noting the Heard as "I am hearing a [ie pleasant] sound"

I think this is also in line with this Sutta excerpt;
"Now is the time, O Blessed One. Now is the time, O One Well-Gone, for the Blessed One to teach the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of the noble one. Having heard the Blessed One, the monks will remember it."

"In that case, Ananda, listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," Ven. Ananda responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or having opened them, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to forms cognizable by the eye
....
"And how is one a person in training, someone following the way? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing.
...

"This is how one is a person in training, someone following the way.

"And how is one a noble one with developed faculties? There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful.

"This is how one is a noble one with developed faculties.

"So, Ananda, I have taught you the unexcelled development of the faculties in the discipline of a noble one; I have taught you how one is a person in training, someone following the way; I have taught you how one is a noble one with developed faculties. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One's words.
The expression of "agreeable and disagreeable sensory perception dependent on x & y..." is warranted from reconciling the following two excerpt and those above;
"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind."
with
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain.
So in regards to the original question;
whether or not identifying The Heard as noise, voice or siren is papanca
Given that in referrence to the Sensed there should only be the the expression of "cognition of the sensory perception dependent on body & tacticle sensation" i think that It is evident that there should be no statement of what is causing the sensation, ie an injury.

Therefore i think that conceiving of a "Voice" or a "Siren" in referrence to what is "Heard" is papanca of the "Heard" because from "voice" existence of a being or a device producing the voice can be inferred and is postulated, as is in case of a "siren" where the existence of a device making the siren sound is postulated. Thus i think that one objectifies the arisen "sensory impressions dependent on ear & sound" and makes papanca out of the arisen sensory impression.

In case of a "noise" it is not necessarily papanca of the Heard if it merely refers to "a disagreable sensory perception dependent on ear & sound"

Let me know if you find errors obviously.

Do not go off-topic but feel free to leave a comment and to discuss practical applications as well as alternative interpretation.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

JohnK
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by JohnK » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:59 pm

My understanding, FWIW, is that recognizing "siren" is part of perception; speculating that it might be an ambulance coming to get my neighbor is fabrication. As papanca has been called mental proliferation, I consider it when the first fabrication leads to more and more.
However, it may be that your extensive sutta quotes indicate that I have it wrong (and I may not even be on topic for you -- sorry if that is the case).
"...the practice is essentially a practice, and not a theory to be idly discussed...right view leaves unanswered many questions about the cosmos and the self, and directs your attention to what needs to be done to escape from the ravages of suffering." Thanissaro Bhikkhu, On The Path.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:20 pm

JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:59 pm
My understanding, FWIW, is that recognizing "siren" is part of perception; speculating that it might be an ambulance coming to get my neighbor is fabrication. As papanca has been called mental proliferation, I consider it when the first fabrication leads to more and more.
However, it may be that your extensive sutta quotes indicate that I have it wrong (and I may not even be on topic for you -- sorry if that is the case).
This goes to the heart of it,
When considering the interpreation of the "Siren" as the perceived of the Seen based on this;
Perception

"'Perception, perception': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'perception'?"

"'It perceives, it perceives': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'perception.' And what does it perceive? It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red. It perceives white. 'It perceives, it perceives': Thus it is said to be 'perception.'"
I do not think that is a warranted interpretation because as it goes;
"roses are red, violets are blue.."
"Roses" are not the same thing as the color "Red" and "Violets" are not the same as the color "Blue"

i think it would be wrong to say that one perceives "Roses" because it is not the same thing as saying one perceives "Red"

So in the case of perception of Sound i think the more natural assumption is that sound is perceived as "pitch and tone"

If Seeing is Form & Color, then the Hearing is Pitch & Tone imo

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:57 pm

JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:59 pm
Another argument i will make pertaining to the point of controversy raised by you.

Perhaps you will agree that this is a warranted modification of the statement by what can be inferred from it;
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
Now if we replace the expression of what one perceives with the explaination of what one actually perceives according to the Maha Vedalla Sutta, we would get this:
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives,[ie It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red]. What one perceives, [It perceives blue. It perceives yellow. It perceives red] one thinks about. What one thinks about,[ie blue, yellow, red] one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
So as would be evident from the above "seemingly reasonable modification" of Ven. Maha Kaccayana statement it should be quite evident that Objectification is the objectification of the features and particulars of the arisen perception. So when Seeing color of Forms, one may objectify the Color as Roses and Violets, and based on this objectification one may be assailed by various thoughts pertaining to the perception of those objects.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JohnK
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by JohnK » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:02 pm

So, maybe Bahiya got killed by that cow because all he saw was color and shape getting larger and larger! :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist -- no offense intended.)

But as a matter of vipassana/satipatthana practice, are you suggesting that one should try to shut off the identification of roses and sirens?
Edit: I clicked submit on this before seeing your immediately preceding post -- I'll have a look at that.
"...the practice is essentially a practice, and not a theory to be idly discussed...right view leaves unanswered many questions about the cosmos and the self, and directs your attention to what needs to be done to escape from the ravages of suffering." Thanissaro Bhikkhu, On The Path.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:09 pm

JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:02 pm
So, maybe Bahiya got killed by that cow because all he saw was color and shape getting larger and larger! :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

But as a matter of vipassana/satipatthana practice, are you suggesting that one should try to shut off the identification of roses and sirens?
yes, i suggest that one dont go even as far as the perception of color let alone the perception of the object.
"Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
Note here that it is possible, not a necessity to delineate perception.
Thus when Eye Consciousness arises one should not delineate the Perception. One just keeps it as at "Pleasant Feeling arisen dependent on Eye & Form[1] or Neutral feeling arisen dependent on Eye & Form and Unpleasant Feeling arisen dependent on Eye & Form.

[1] Eye & Form are The Four Great Elements(Form) and Form derived from The Four Great Elements (Eye)

One can also extrapolate the inferred meaning to state "Pleasant feeling arisen dependent on Contact which is dependent on the Meeting of the Three: the Primary Rupa, the Derived Rupa and the Consciosness at the Eye-Base" but all this is essentially implied and highly unpractical.
The Buddha said to that monk: “One rightly contemplates the eye as not-self, and one also rightly contemplates forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and feeling arisen in dependence on eye-contact, be it painful, pleasant, or neutral, as not-self. In this way … up to … one also rightly contemplates feeling arisen in dependence on mind-contact, be it painful, pleasant, or neutral, as not-self.
One should delineate feeling because what we want to achieve is essentially the cessation of feeling and given that craving depends on Feeling, one develops dispassion for Feeling to abandon craving. One can not be noting contact because it is not tangible as feeling is, contact is postulated by theoretical understanding of feeling is what i mean.
"And this craving has what as its cause, what as its origination, through what is it born, through what is it brought into being?

"Craving has feeling as its cause... is brought into being through feeling.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:52 pm, edited 6 times in total.

JohnK
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by JohnK » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:28 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:09 pm
JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:02 pm
So, maybe Bahiya got killed by that cow because all he saw was color and shape getting larger and larger! :)
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

But as a matter of vipassana/satipatthana practice, are you suggesting that one should try to shut off the identification of roses and sirens?
yes, i suggest that one dont go even as far as the perception of color let alone the perception of the object.
I'm interested to hear other practitioners take on this.

(My perhaps incorrect take on it goes something like: rather than attempting to shut off the operation of the aggregates, one needs to recognize the suffering/stress/assailing that arises when clinging/identifying any as I, me, mine -- this recognition supports the abandoning of the cause.)
"...the practice is essentially a practice, and not a theory to be idly discussed...right view leaves unanswered many questions about the cosmos and the self, and directs your attention to what needs to be done to escape from the ravages of suffering." Thanissaro Bhikkhu, On The Path.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:07 pm

JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:28 pm
(My perhaps incorrect take on it goes something like: rather than attempting to shut off the operation of the aggregates, one needs to recognize the suffering/stress/assailing that arises when clinging/identifying any as I, me, mine -- this recognition supports the abandoning of the cause.)
this is as far off-topics as i want to go but we can make another thread, i will be glad to discuss it. That being said, I think it should be well evident that shutting down the operation of the aggregates is very much the ultimate goal;
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, there are these five clinging-aggregates. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as an a clinging-aggregate.

"Now, as long as I did not have direct knowledge of the fourfold round with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening in this cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans & contemplatives, its royalty & common people.
But when I did have direct knowledge of the fourfold round with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening in this cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its brahmans & contemplatives, its royalty & common people.

"The fourfold round in what way? I had direct knowledge of form... of the origination of form... of the cessation of form... of the path of practice leading to the cessation of form.

"I had direct knowledge of feeling...

"I had direct knowledge of perception...

"I had direct knowledge of fabrications...

"I had direct knowledge of consciousness... of the origination of consciousness... of the cessation of consciousness... of the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness.

"And what is form? The four great existents[1] and the form derived from them: this is called form. From the origination of nutriment comes the origination of form. From the cessation of nutriment comes the cessation of form. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of form, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.


"For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing form in this way, directly knowing the origination of form in this way, directly knowing the cessation of form in this way, directly knowing the path of practice leading to the cessation of form in this way, are practicing for disenchantment — dispassion — cessation with regard to form, they are practicing rightly. Those who are practicing rightly are firmly based in this doctrine & discipline. And any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing form in this way, directly knowing the origination of form in this way, directly knowing the cessation of form in this way, directly knowing the path of practice leading to the cessation of form in this way, are — from disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, lack of clinging/sustenance with regard to form — released, they are well-released. Those who are well-released are fully accomplished. And with those who are fully accomplished, there is no cycle for the sake of describing them.

"And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling. From the origination of contact comes the origination of feeling. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of feeling...

"And what is perception? These six classes of perception — perception of form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of taste, perception of tactile sensation, perception of ideas: this is called perception. From the origination of contact comes the origination of perception. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of perception. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of perception...

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of fabrications...

"And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness — eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness: this is called consciousness. From the origination of name-&-form comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

Fourfold Round is the Knowledge of,Knowledge of Origination, Knowledge of Cessation (Shutting down is warranted here imo), Knowledge of the Practice. In other words until realization of the Four Noble Truths.

JohnK
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by JohnK » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:38 pm

I did not intend to stray off-topic.
Hopefully others will join in on-topic.
:anjali:
"...the practice is essentially a practice, and not a theory to be idly discussed...right view leaves unanswered many questions about the cosmos and the self, and directs your attention to what needs to be done to escape from the ravages of suffering." Thanissaro Bhikkhu, On The Path.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1927
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:14 pm

JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:38 pm
I did not intend to stray off-topic.
Hopefully others will join in on-topic.
:anjali:
No worries i just thought id say that we should put it aside so we don't derail the thread if we kept talking about the cessation of aggregates and what realization of the Noble Truths entails.

Thanks for your comments.

auto
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by auto » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:05 pm

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN21.html
“So Kālī the slave got up after daybreak. Then Lady Vedehikā said to her: ‘Hey, Kālī!’
“‘What, madam?’
“‘Why did you get up after daybreak?’
“‘No reason, madam.’
“‘No reason, you wicked slave, and yet you get up after daybreak?’ Angered & displeased, she scowled.
Then the thought occurred to Kālī the slave: ‘Anger is present in my lady without showing, and not absent. And it’s just because I’m diligent, deft, & neat in my work that the anger present in my lady doesn’t show. Why don’t I test her some more?’
“So Kālī the slave got up later in the day. Then Lady Vedehikā said to her: ‘Hey, Kālī!’
“‘What, madam?’
“‘Why did you get up later in the day?’
“‘No reason, madam.’
“‘No reason, you wicked slave, and yet you get up later in the day?’ Angered & displeased, she grumbled.
Then the thought occurred to Kālī the slave: ‘Anger is present in my lady without showing, and not absent. And it’s just because I’m diligent, deft, & neat in my work that the anger present in my lady doesn’t show. Why don’t I test her some more?’
“So Kālī the slave got up even later in the day. Then Lady Vedehikā said to her: ‘Hey, Kālī!’
“‘What, madam?’
“‘Why did you get up even later in the day?’
“‘No reason, madam.’
“‘No reason, you wicked slave, and yet you get up even later in the day?’ Angered & displeased, she grabbed hold of a rolling pin and gave her a whack over the head, cutting it open.
Then Kālī the slave, with blood streaming from her cut-open head, went and denounced her mistress to the neighbors: ‘See, ladies, the gentle one’s handiwork? See the mild-tempered one’s handiwork? See the calm one’s handiwork? How could she, angered & displeased with her only slave for getting up after daybreak, grab hold of a rolling pin and give her a whack over the head, cutting it open?’
“After that this evil report about Lady Vedehikā circulated: ‘Lady Vedehikā is vicious. Lady Vedehikā is foul-tempered. Lady Vedehikā is violent.’
“In the same way, monks, a monk may be ever so gentle, ever so mild-tempered, ever so calm, as long as he is not touched by disagreeable aspects of speech. But it is only when disagreeable aspects of speech touch him that he can truly be known as gentle, mild-tempered, & calm.
I think there needs be a contact happen with the disagreeable aspect to acquire conceivable.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2965
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:01 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm
What i want to answer is whether or not identifying The Heard as noise, voice or siren is papanca.
MN 18 seems to explain this: contact > feeling > perception > thinking > papanca. It seems all thinking (vitakketi) is not necessarily papanca (proliferation).
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm
I will try arriving at an answer by reconciling several excerpts as follows;
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
This seems clear enough
Its not really clear because what appears emphasised above is the absence of self rather than the absence of thinking. Thinking is also something that is "cognized".
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
How is the above quote relevant? Papanca appears to be a mind object (idea) cognized by the intellect sense base.
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:24 pm
Consciousness

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
I assume that the Sense Impressions would be cognized as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral as that would be in line with the Satipatthana practice and that this would be the inferred instruction in case of the Sensed, and "the cognition of sensory impression dependent on Body & Tacticle Sensations" in particular;
"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings in & of themselves? There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling.' When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling.' When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.'
So here i assume that in regards to letting Sensed only be Sensed and the Cognized only being the Cognized one should be noting "I am feeling a pleasant feeling" in case of the arising of a feeling cognized as pleasant,
No. The quote from MN 43 has chosen feeling to describe consciousness probably because feeling is something very subtle & primal. A similar quote from SN 22.79 describe taste:
And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

SN 22.79
When the Pali says" "Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind objects. The meeting of the three is contact" (manañcāvuso, paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso") these mind objects (dhamme) obviously include any object known via the mind, such as a feeling, a perception, a thought, a memory, a defilment, papanca, a mental image a mental image, jhana, arupa jhana and even Nibbana.

pegembara
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by pegembara » Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:30 am

“Beings who perceive what can be expressed
Become established on what can be expressed....

-Bodhi

"Beings are conscious of what can be named,
They are established on the nameable,...

-Ñāṇananda
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
What one feels, one perceives (labels OR NAMES in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes."

Eg. "That is blue. Blue is calming. Reminds me of a fresh pool. How refreshing. Time to plan for a holiday by the lake."

Conversely you can't miss having things that don't yet exist for you.
"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:36 am

pegembara wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:30 am
What one feels, one perceives (labels OR NAMES in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes."

Eg. "That is blue. Blue is calming. Reminds me of a fresh pool. How refreshing. Time to plan for a holiday by the lake."
That's a nice example. Just reading MN18 it doesn't sound like all thinking is papanca.
Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to thoughts known by the mind in the past, future, and present.
https://suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato#16.6
When there is what’s known as thought, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’.
https://suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato#17.5
Thanissaro Bhikkhu emphasises the objectification aspect: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN18.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud7_7.html

And, of course, there is plenty about papapanca in Ven Nananda's Nibbana Sermons, and in the book Concept and Reality, where the translation "proliferation" seems to originate:
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/

:heart:
Mike

Dinsdale
Posts: 5969
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is Papanca commentary, identification or both?

Post by Dinsdale » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:10 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:09 pm
JohnK wrote:
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:02 pm
But as a matter of vipassana/satipatthana practice, are you suggesting that one should try to shut off the identification of roses and sirens?
yes, i suggest that one dont go even as far as the perception of color let alone the perception of the object.
I think this is tricky, practically speaking, because sanna is usually an automatic and unconscious process.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests