1

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it?

And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.

Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

3 Answers3

1

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it?

Yes, Papanca and self-identity always go hand in hand. Ven. Thanissaro in his MN 18 translation gave a pretty good elaboration on what Papanca means:

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. ~~ MN 18 ~~

santa100
  • 9,679
  • 12
  • 17
0

I answered a very similar question to this a while ago here. That answer quoted a treatise that is very influential in East Asian Buddhism, namely the Madhyamakaśāstra. In the Madhyamakaśāstra, the author, Venerable Vimalākṣa, defines "prapañca" (translated here as "frivolous pondering") in two ways. From the linked post, abridged:

Because [Nirvāṇa] is characterized by quiet tranquility, it cannot be frivolously pondered as a frivolous pondering. Those are of two kinds. First is the argument from emotion, and the second is the argument from opinion. Via the middle, there are none of these two frivolous ponderings. Two frivolous ponderings (being) naught, there is neither agreement with nor dissent from. "Not another" and undifferentiated from itself, it is described as "reality."

I comment in the linked post:

The "argument from emotion" refers to argumentation rooted, ultimately, in ignorance and suffering, as well as craving and greed. We want to live forever. An "argument from emotion" to this effect would be "Isn't it awful to believe that people just die? Surely it's better (and makes me feel better) if ordinary persons, or maybe just the Buddhas, were immortal." An "argument from opinion" refers to personal theories as well as to secondary theses derived from primary doctrines. An argument of this sort would be "The Buddha must exist after death, because it is said that he doesn't not exist after death."

I hope this is useful to you.

Caoimhghin
  • 1,140
  • 7
  • 16
-1

Here, and example:

Is the following anyhow related to 'Papañca' in the apparent 'proliferation' as you understand it? Could you otherwise point out what is Papañca as you think of it?

Or what ever undertaking wishing to nail something down, doing it real (lobha, dosa, moha connected), under ones control.

user23703
  • 17
  • 2