What i want to answer is whether or not identifying The Heard as noise, voice or siren is papanca.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.
I will try arriving at an answer by reconciling several excerpts as follows;
This seems clear enough but there are some questions that arise:"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]
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;
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."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."
Given that Bahiya was instructed to let the cognized only be cognized, in light of the following excerpt;
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;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.'"
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,"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.'
The other senses are cognizable as well;
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"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.
I think this is also in line with this Sutta excerpt;
The expression of "agreeable and disagreeable sensory perception dependent on x & y..." is warranted from reconciling the following two excerpt and those above;"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.
with"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."
So in regards to the original question;"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.
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.whether or not identifying The Heard as noise, voice or siren is papanca
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.