Thoughts on Papanca

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Thoughts on Papanca

Postby polarbuddha101 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:22 am

As I was going to sleep listening to a talk by John Peacock on dharmaseed, I noticed that he uses the term proliferation as an english translation for papanca. He was using it in the context of how people tend to conceptually proliferate and run amok in their thought worlds all while centering around their perception of themselves or self. It was at that moment when I thought of Thanissaro's alternative translation of papanca as objectification and I had a strange visualization/imagining of cutting off the top of a head and seeing a big "I" in the middle with conceptual/mental proliferation tethered to this "I" and circling around it in some sort of mental samsara based on an object with no proper or locatable referent, the referent being "I". So, given those thoughts, I wondered if papanca can mean both objectification and proliferation in an interrelated sense, as in we objectify things, objectify ourselves and then mentally proliferate around these objectifications.
Anyway, just felt like writing the thought down. I'll think about it some more tomorrow. Please do offer your thoughts on my thought and/or about your thoughts on papanca in general.

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Thoughts on Papanca

Postby santa100 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:16 pm

Here's Ven. Thanissaro's analysis of papanca in his intro. to MN 18 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html ):

"This discourse plays a central role in the early Buddhist analysis of conflict. As might be expected, the blame for conflict lies within, in the unskillful habits of the mind, rather than without. The culprit in this case is a habit called papañca. Unfortunately, none of the early texts give a clear definition of what the word papañca means, so it's hard to find a precise English equivalent for the term. However, they do give a clear analysis of how papañca arises, how it leads to conflict, and how it can be ended. In the final analysis, these are the questions that matter — more than the precise definition of terms — so we will deal with them first before proposing a few possible translation equivalents for the word.

Three passages in the discourses — DN 21, MN 18, and Sn 4.11 — map the causal processes that give rise to papañca and lead from papañca to conflict. Because the Buddhist analysis of causality is generally non-linear, with plenty of room for feedback loops, the maps vary in some of their details. In DN 21, the map reads like this:

the perceptions & categories of papañca > thinking > desire > dear-&-not-dear > envy & stinginess > rivalry & hostility
In Sn 4.11, the map is less linear and can be diagrammed like this:

perception > the categories of papañca

perception > name & form > contact > appealing & unappealing > desire > dear-&-not-dear > stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes

In MN 18, the map is this:

contact > feeling > perception > thinking > the perceptions & categories of papañca
In this last case, however, the bare outline misses some of the important implications of the way this process is phrased. In the full passage, the analysis starts out in an impersonal tone:

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises [similarly with the rest of the six senses]. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.
Starting with feeling, the notion of an "agent" — in this case, the feeler — acting on "objects," is introduced:

What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes."
Through the process of papañca, the agent then becomes a victim of his/her own patterns of thinking:

Based on what a person papañcizes, the perceptions & categories of papañca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses].
What are these perceptions & categories that assail the person who papañcizes? Sn 4.14 states that the root of the categories of papañca is the perception, "I am the thinker." From this self-reflexive thought — in which one conceives a "self," a thing corresponding to the concept of "I" — a number of categories can be derived: being/not-being, me/not-me, mine/not-mine, doer/done-to, signifier/signified. Once one's self becomes a thing under the rubric of these categories, it's impossible not to be assailed by the perceptions & categories derived from these basic distinctions. When there's the sense of identification with something that experiences, then based on the feelings arising from sensory contact, some feelings will seem appealing — worth getting for the self — and others will seem unappealing — worth pushing away. From this there grows desire, which comes into conflict with the desires of others who are also engaging in papañca. This is how inner objectifications breed external contention.

How can this process be ended? Through a shift in perception, caused by the way one attends to feelings, using the categories of appropriate attention [see MN 2]. As the Buddha states in DN 21, rather than viewing a feeling as an appealing or unappealing thing, one should look at it as part of a causal process: when a particular feeling is pursued, do skillful or unskillful qualities increase in the mind? If skillful qualities increase, the feeling may be pursued. If unskillful qualities increase, it shouldn't. When comparing feelings that lead to skillful qualities, notice which are more refined: those accompanied with thinking (directed thought) and evaluation, or those free of thinking and evaluation, as in the higher stages of mental absorption, or jhana. When seeing this, there is a tendency to opt for the more refined feelings, and this cuts through the act of thinking that, according to MN 18, provides the basis for papañca.

In following this program, the notion of agent and victim is avoided, as is self-reflexive thinking in general. There is simply the analysis of cause-effect processes. One is still making use of dualities — distinguishing between unskillful and skillful (and affliction/lack of affliction, the results of unskillful and skillful qualities) — but the distinction is between processes, not things. Thus one's analysis avoids the type of thinking that, according to DN 21, depends on the perceptions and categories of papañca, and in this way the vicious cycle by which thinking and papañca keep feeding each other is cut.

Ultimately, by following this program to greater and greater levels of refinement through the higher levels of mental absorption, one finds less and less to relish and enjoy in the six senses and the mental processes based on them. With this sense of disenchantment, the processes of feeling and thought are stilled, and there is a breakthrough to the cessation of the six sense spheres. When these spheres cease, is there anything else left? Ven. Sariputta, in AN 4.174, warns us not to ask, for to ask if there is, isn't, both-is-and-isn't, neither-is-nor-isn't anything left in that dimension is to papañcize what is free from papañca. However, this dimension is not a total annihilation of experience. It's a type of experience that DN 11 calls consciousness without feature, luminous all around, where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing, where long/short, coarse/fine, fair/foul, name/form are all brought to an end. This is the fruit of the path of arahantship — a path that makes use of dualities but leads to a fruit beyond them.

It may come as cold comfort to realize that conflict can be totally overcome only with the realization of arahantship, but it's important to note that by following the path recommended in DN 21 — learning to avoid references to any notion of "self" and learning to view feelings not as things but as parts of a causal process affecting the qualities in the mind — the basis for papañca is gradually undercut, and there are fewer and fewer occasions for conflict. In following this path, one reaps its increasing benefits all along the way.

Translating papañca: As one writer has noted, the word papañca has had a wide variety of meanings in Indian thought, with only one constant: in Buddhist philosophical discourse it carries negative connotations, usually of falsification and distortion. The word itself is derived from a root that means diffuseness, spreading, proliferating. The Pali Commentaries define papañca as covering three types of thought: craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow the mind down in its escape from samsara. Because its categories begin with the objectifying thought, "I am the thinker," I have chosen to render the word as "objectification," although some of the following alternatives might be acceptable as well: self-reflexive thinking, reification, proliferation, complication, elaboration, distortion. The word offers some interesting parallels to the postmodern notion of logocentric thinking, but it's important to note that the Buddha's program of deconstructing this process differs sharply from that of postmodern thought."
santa100
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on Papanca

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:30 pm

Hi PB,
polarbuddha101 wrote:So, given those thoughts, I wondered if papanca can mean both objectification and proliferation in an interrelated sense, as in we objectify things, objectify ourselves and then mentally proliferate around these objectifications.

I think with a lot of the Buddh'as teachings there are multiple interpretations, which is probably a good thing. Different interpretations can be useful at different times, and for different problems.

Here's some discussion of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's views:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12375
Bhikkhu Nanananda's views can be found in Concept and Reality:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102243995/Bhi ... st-Thought
This (1971) exposition became the standard interpretation for English Language translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi. It would be interesting to know how the non-English (Burmese and Thai) interpreters define this term.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Thoughts on Papanca

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:22 pm

Greetings Polarbuddha101,

polarbuddha101 wrote:Please do offer your thoughts on my thought and/or about your thoughts on papanca in general.

In looking at papanca, I think its also pertinent to look at its opposite, nippapanca, which is used as a synonym for nibbana.

The essence of nippapanca, seems to be well captured in these instructions to Bahiya...

Ud 1.10, Ireland translation wrote:"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

Papanca is being "with that" and "in that".

Nippapanca is "neither here nor beyond nor in between the two"

The "that" refered to comes to be when one proliferates beyond the "In the x will be merely what is x" condition.

Any instance of "that" is a fabrication (sankhara), conditioned by ignorance (avijja), and it is "that" which is the entire experiential foundation of samsara.

Thus, I agree with your assessment that...

polarbuddha101 wrote:papanca can mean both objectification and proliferation in an interrelated sense, as in we objectify things, objectify ourselves and then mentally proliferate around these objectifications.

As a phenomenological experience, papanca could be described as being 'lost in fabrications', and this is what samsaric existence is. Samsara is wandering on in the sense of being 'lost in fabrications' - not in the sense of transmigration of any independent thing which is really "with this" or "in that". Samsara will be overcome when "you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two". You are entirely correct when you pin the problems upon the 'referent being "I"' which has an inherent refer-ence which is incompatible with being "neither here nor beyond nor in between the two".

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], chownah and 17 guests