Three words seem to be used fairly interchangeably. The one that has attracted the most attention is of course the noun
papañca and its verb
papañceti.
As Sam notes,
maññati also appears as a close synonym to
papañceti in MN 1. It pops up also in SN 36.30-32 and SN 36.90-91 (looking only at
maññati and none of the other conjugations). The context of those SN 36 suttas, especially in the light of the conceiving "That is mine", seems to the classical form of clinging/appropriation.
Another close synonym appears to be
paññapeti, but more on this later.
We start with the Buddha's statement in MN 18 -
Yatonidānaṃ bhikkhu purisaṃ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti, ettha ce natthi abhinanditabbaṃ abhivaditabbaṃ ajjhosetabbaṃ, esevanto rāgānusayānaṃ. Esevanto paṭighānusayānaṃ. Esevanto diṭṭhānusayānaṃ. Esevanto vicikicchānusayānaṃ. Esevanto mānānusayānaṃ. Esevanto bhavarāgānusayānaṃ. Esevanto avijjānusayānaṃ. Esevanto daṇḍādānasatthādānakalahaviggahavivāda tuvantuvampesuññamusāvādānaṃ. Etthete pāpakā akusalā dhammā aparisesā nirujjhantīti.
If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder."
What Ven T renders as "obsessions" are the
anusayā/latent tendencies.
A little later, we see this -
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.
So vatāvuso cakkhusmiṃ sati rūpe sati cakkhuviññāṇe sati phassapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Phassapaññattiyā sati vedanāpaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Vedanāpaññattiyā sati saññāpaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati saññāpaññattiyā sati vitakkapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati, vitakkapaññattiyā sati papañcasaññāsaṅkhāsamudācaraṇapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati.
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.
So vatāvuso cakkhusmiṃ asati rūpe asati cakkhuviññāṇe asati phassapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati. Phassapaññattiyā asati vedanāpaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati. Vedanāpaññattiyā asati saññāpaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati. Saññāpaññattiyā asati vitakkapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati, vitakkapaññattiyā asati papañcasaññāsaṅkhāsamudācaraṇapaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
Note the "delineation" =
paññatti, and "will delineate" =
paññāpessatī (future tense conjugation of
paññāpeti/delineates). These terms pop up in another closely related sutta, DN 15 -
‘‘Kittāvatā ca, ānanda, attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti? Rūpiṃ vā hi, ānanda, parittaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti – ‘‘rūpī me paritto attā’’ti. Rūpiṃ vā hi , ānanda, anantaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti – ‘rūpī me ananto attā’ti. Arūpiṃ vā hi, ānanda, parittaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti – ‘arūpī me paritto attā’ti. Arūpiṃ vā hi, ānanda, anantaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti – ‘arūpī me ananto attā’ti.
‘‘Tatrānanda, yo so rūpiṃ parittaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti. Etarahi vā so rūpiṃ parittaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti, tattha bhāviṃ vā so rūpiṃ parittaṃ attānaṃ paññapento paññapeti, ‘atathaṃ vā pana santaṃ tathattāya upakappessāmī’ti iti vā panassa hoti. Evaṃ santaṃ kho, ānanda, rūpiṃ [rūpī (ka.)] parittattānudiṭṭhi anusetīti iccālaṃ vacanāya.
To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'
"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.
Something else about MN 18's possible/impossible scenarios are also echoed in DN 15, which outlines the 2 cases of delineation of the self versus non-delineation of the self. The possible/impossible dichotomy suggests that
papañca is not an inevitable sequel to perception, and can be arrested. We therefore don't need to resort to the fiction of "unconditioned" perception to be free of
papañca. The impossibility scenario simply illustrates that the prequel is a necessary condition, and not a sufficient condition, to what follows.
Further, if one looks at the situation where one delineates a self, the sutta says that " a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him", where we have
anuseti for Ven T's "obsesses". This mirrors the Buddha's original enigmatic statement in MN 18 about the underlying tendency to view (
diṭṭhānusayā).
A little further down DN 15, another form of
papañca is represented by "assumptions about the self" (
attānaṃ samanupassamāno) based on the feeling aggregate.
Looking at the main doctrinal statement in MN 18 about
papañca's relationship to the
anusayā, we know from SN 12.38 that the latter falls within Dependant Origination's
saṅkhāra/volitional formation. I think we can probably deduce from that main doctrinal statement that it is another way of stating Dependant Cessation, ie with the cessation of ignorance, the cessation of volitions formations.