Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:29 am

ground wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ground wrote: "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.
Dmytro: Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition). It is compliant with the suttas:
  • MN 18: "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 [saññā] (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies [papañca]. 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." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by ground » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:36 am

ground wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
ground wrote: "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.
tiltbillings wrote:Dmytro: Papanca arises later, after "sanna" (recognition). It is compliant with the suttas:
  • MN 18: "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 [saññā] (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies [papañca]. 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." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:
ground wrote:
"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;

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:45 am

ground wrote:if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:
In other words, you know naught of what you speak. The suttas you quoted do not support your position. What it looks like is that you really do not have a clue as to what papañca means and how it used in the suttas. Also, the "if - and only if" sentence shows you do not really know how the suttas talk about these things. I can suggest some reading for you to do so that you can get up to speed on these things rather than simply flailing about. It would make for a far better discussion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by ground » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:57 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ground wrote:if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:
In other words, you know naught of what you speak.
What is spoken of is expression of knowledge by means of terms and terminology. But the words are not the knowledge and the ideas arising upon reading thse words are not the knowledge. There is no knowledge about what is seen in the sphere of "other aggregates" however because this sphere is not accessible.
tiltbillings wrote: The suttas you quoted do not support your position. What it looks like is that you really do not have a clue as to what papañca means and how it used in the suttas. Also, the "if - and only if" sentence shows you do not really know how the suttas talk about these things. I can suggest some reading for you to do so that you can get up to speed on these things rather than simply flailing about. It would make for a far better discussion.
There is no intention to discuss about in the sense of "is it this or is it that" because this way of approach is seen as faulty and as cultivation of exactly what is here described as "papanca". But the words aroused by own expression (by means of words) are - sometimes, not always - inspiring in that they help to better understand what is termed "Theravada" by some. :sage:

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:00 am

ground wrote: . . .
In other words, for all your verbage trying to say otherwise, Dmytro got it right.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by ground » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:09 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ground wrote: . . .
In other words, for all your verbage trying to say otherwise, Dmytro got it right.
Well actually - with reference to suttas that cause a variety of interpretations by a variety of commentators and translators - there is no agreement exactly because there is no difference that may be delineated in that what appears "separated" qua different terms only (see quote from MN 43).

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Papanca

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:22 am

ground wrote: . . .
In other words Dmytro is correct, but you have an alternate understanding.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SarathW and 90 guests