Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

[ground]

Too much papanca

[mikenz66]

Too much papanca

By which definition?


Mike

[gavesako]

In his earlier translations Thanissaro translated papanca as "complication" which also seem to fit some contexts. And the word "diversification" or "multiplication" might apply as well (derived from the idea of "spreading" and "growth").

papañca: In doctrinal usage, it signifies the expansion, differentiation, 'diffuseness' or 'manifoldness' of the world; and it may also refer to the 'phenomenal world' in general, and to the mental attitude of 'worldliness'. In A. IV, 173, it is said: "As far as the field of sixfold sense-impression extends, so far reaches the world of diffuseness (or the phenomenal world; papañcassa gati); as far as the world of diffuseness extends, so far extends the field of sixfold sense-impression. Through the complete fading away and cessation of the field of sixfold sense-impression, there comes about the cessation and the coming-to-rest of the world of diffuseness (papañca-nirodho papañca-vupasamo)." The opposite term nippapañca is a name for Nibbāna (S. LIII), in the sense of 'freedom from samsaric diffuseness'.
Dhp. 254: "Mankind delights in the diffuseness of the world, the Perfect Ones are free from such diffuseness"(papañcābhiratā pajā, nippapañca tathāgatā).
The 8th of the 'thoughts of a great man' (mahā-purisa-vitakka; A. VIII, 30) has: "This Dhamma is for one who delights in non-diffuseness (the unworldly, Nibbāna); it is not for him who delights in worldliness (papañca)."
For the psychological sense of 'differentiation', see M. 18 (Madhupiṇḍika Sutta): "Whatever man conceives (vitakketi) that he differentiates (papañceti); and what he differentiates, by reason thereof ideas and considerations of differentiation (papañca-saññā-saṅkhā) arise in him."

Buddhist Dictionary

In Thai translations, they always render it as "that which causes delay" (remaining longer in samsara) which is based on the commentarial gloss, but seems to lack much of the profundity of the original Pali term.

I have recently compared this notion of papanca to the infinitely complex chaotic systems which also start from a very simple formula but then become immensely diversified and multiplied in a recursive way.
In the compound papañca-saññā-sankhā the commentary glosses sankhā by koṭṭhāsa, “portion”, and Ñanamoli uses “calculation” because this term is related to counting, using numbers to represent reality. This would lead us to the following tentative translation: fractals of diversified perception.

[Sylvester]

I'm rather inclined to take Ven T's approach, which draws pāpañca back into its central role in the construction of the sense of "self".

However, "objectification" seems restrictive, to the extent that some self-views do not necessarily depend on a subject-object relation. This would be the first of each of the 4 sets of clinging applied to the 5 Aggregates, eg "he assumes form to be self" (rūpaṃ attato samanupassati). I don't think this sort of identification of self = form requires objectification per se.

Plus, there might be a temptation to use the term "objectification" to introduce a Mahayana-ish critique of any attempt to legitimately describe the constituents of reality as either present or absent. I follow SN 22.62 in rejecting any coyness about the validity of statements that make ontic commitments about the things being analysed.

Perhaps "subjectification" (as in the recognition of oneself as a grammatical subject/agent) could stand in for pāpañca.

[ground]

Too much papanca

By which definition?


Mike

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

[Dmytro]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ground]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

"There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? ... contact as the second... These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
...
"Where there is passion, delight, & craving for the nutriment of contact, consciousness lands there and increases. Where consciousness lands and increases, there is the alighting of name-&-form. Where there is the alighting of name-&-form, there is the growth of fabrications. Where there is the growth of fabrications, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiltbillings]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

According to the suttas, plain and simple.

[ground]

Hi Ground,

This description (not meant as "definition") appears adequate:
papanca is initiated by contact (phassa) and its meaning includes everything arising from that in the sphere of being mentally affirmed. So in this context actually "papanca" simply means "add on".

Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition):

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe according to Theravada exegesis, yes ...

According to the suttas, plain and simple.

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

[tiltbillings]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

[ground]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the description given IS the Theravada exegesis. Of course it is not.

[tiltbillings]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the descrition given IS the Theravada exegesis.

In other words, Dmytro is correct, and you are not.

[ground]

Yes, the suttas supporting what has been stated have been quoted. If what has been stated and supported by sutta quotes deviates from Theravada exegesis then it be so.

Which term in the quotation you gave is papanca?

There is no need for this term to appear in the quotes, because the description given for the meaning of papanca has been supported by the quotes. No term definition has been given, but a description which you may understand as a suggestion that you can ignore or reject or accept or be inspired by. No claim has ever been made that the descrition given IS the Theravada exegesis.

In other words, Dmytro is correct, and you are not.

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

[tiltbillings]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

[ground]

"I" is neither buddhist nor theravadin, the same may hold true for "you". So what is correct and what is wrong?

What is correct is what Dmytro said, as can be seen direrctly in the suttas, and what is wrong is "you."

As stated earlier what Dmytro said may be compliant with Theravada exegesis.