[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Dan Lusthaus]

Those not interested in the meaning of prapanca and its occurrence in
Sanskrit texts can delete this message now. Everyone else, set your email
reader to utf-8 unicode.

If Richard (and others) are interested in searching for the answer to the
meaning of prapanca in actual Buddhist texts and seeing how it is defined
and/or used there, rather than making up fantasies, then the following
passage might be helpful. This comes from the Bodhisattvabhumi of Asanga's
Yogacarabhumi. It is a long passage. Perhaps Richard, or one of the other
residents of buddha-l would care to translate or summarize it for us (since
my translation would just be the steroids speaking).

The key phrase, which is repeated, is saṃjñā-vikalpāḥ
prapañca-saṃgānugatā, which can be roughly translated (or interpreted) as:
"the prapañca that follows from the collusion of saṃjnā and vikalpa." I had
mentioned in an earlier message that prapanca often occurs in conjunction
with samjna and vikalpa (kalpana, the k.lp derivatives), and here we find an
example of that. Samjna (better known to causal Buddhologists as the third
of the five skandhas) here draws its meaning from the Indian grammatical
tradition. For Asanga it means linguistic-conceptualization. Vikalpa here
means imaginative or conceptual construction (and not just "discrimination"
as those who venerate non-thinking prefer to translate it).

The crux of the argument the passage lays out is given in the example in the
following sentence:

tadā rūpābhāva-mātr'ātmakam eva pariśuddham ākāśaṃ khyāti
Rough, basic translation:
"What appears as "pure space" is nothing but the absence of rūpa."

Note that khyati can mean "appearance" but also means something "declared,"
like a ruler declaring something is so from now on. In Yogacara texts it
often carries that double meaning -- a linguistic-conceptual assertion that
takes on a reality in the imagination of people. The argument being made
here is that akasa (space, ether), often treated as analogous to emptiness
and the all-pervasive goodness, etc., turns out to be nothing but the
absence of rupa (material forms). Instead of recognizing it as a mere
absence (abhaava), some turn that into a positive identity, and venerate it.
Prapanca, in part, includes that process of falsely infusing an imaginary
creation with svabhavic reality. Note the use of svabhava in the
following -- indicating that Asanga has taken Nagarjuna into account.

sattvānām artham ācarati. ye ca sattvā gaṃbhīrāṇāṃ tathāgata-bhāṣitānāṃ
śūnyatā-pratisaṃyuktānāṃ sūtrāntānām ābhiprāyikaṃ tathāgatānām artham
avijñāya ye te sūtrāṃtāḥ niḥsvabhāvatāṃ dharmāṇām abhivadaṃti
nirvastukatām anutpannāniruddhatāṃ ākāśa-samatāṃ māyā- svapnopamatāṃ
dharmāṇām abhivadaṃti. teṣāṃ yathāvad artham avijñāyottrasta-mānasāḥ
tāṃ ṣūtrāṃtāṃ sarveṇa sarvaṃ pratikṣipaṃti naite tathāgata-bhāṣitā
iti. teṣām api sattvanāṃ sa bodhisattvaḥ ānulomikenopāya-kauśalena
teṣāṃ sūtrāntānāṃ tathāgat'ābhiprāyikam arthaṃ yathāvad anulomayati.
tāṃś ca sattvāṃ grāhayati.

evaṃ ca punar anulomayati yathā neme dharmāḥ sarveṇa sarvaṃ na
saṃvidyaṃte. api tv abhilāp'ātmakaḥ svabhāva eṣāṃ nāsti. teneme
niḥsvabhāvā ity ucyaṃte. yady apy etad abhilāpya- vastu vidyate yad
āśrityābhilāpāḥ pravartaṃte. tad api yair abhilāpair yat svabhāvam
abhilapyate. tad api na tat- svabhāvaṃ paramārthataḥ. tasmān nirvastukā
ity ucyaṃte. evaṃ ca sati te 'bhilāpyāḥ svabhāvā dharmāṇām ādita eva
sarveṇa sarvaṃ na saṃvidyaṃte. te kim utpatsyaṃte vā nirotsyaṃte vā
tasmād anutpannā aniruddhā ity ucyaṃte. tad-yathā e' ākāśe vicitrāṇi
prabhūtāṇi rūpāṇi rūpa-karmāṇi copalabhyaṃte. sarveṣāṃ ca teṣāṃ
rūpāṇāṃ rūpa-karmaṇāṃ cāvakāśaṃ datāti tad ākāśaṃ
gaman'āgamana-sthānotpatana-nipatan'ākuṃcana-prasāraṇ'ādīnāṃ. yadā ca
punas tad rūpaṃ tāni ca rūpa- karmāṇy apanītāni bhavaṃti. tadā
rūpābhāva-mātr'ātmakam eva pariśuddham ākāśaṃ khyāti. evaṃ tasmiṃn ākāśa-
sthānīye nirabhilāpye vastuni vividhābhilāpa-kṛtāḥ saṃjñā-vikalpāḥ
prapañca-saṃgānugatā rūpa-karma-sthānīyāḥ pravartaṃte. sarveṣāṃ ca
teṣām abhilāpa-kṛtānāṃ saṃjñā- vikalpānāṃ prapañca-saṃgānugatānāṃ
vicitra-rūpa-karma- sthānīyānāṃ tan nirabhilāpyaṃ vastv-ākāśa-sthānīyam
avakāśaṃ dadāti. yadā ca punar bodhisattvair jñānen' āryeṇa te
'bhilāpa-samutthitā mithyā-saṃjñā-vikalpāḥ prapañca- saṃgānugatāḥ
sarveṇa sarvam apanītā bhavaṃti. tadā teṣāṃ bodhisattvānāṃ
param'āryāṇāṃ ten' ārya-jñānena taṃ nirabhilāpyaṃ vastu
sarvābhilāpya-svabhāvābhāva-mātram ākāśopamaṃ pariśuddhaṃ khyāti. na ca
tasmāt param anyaṃ svabhāvam asya mgayaṃte. tasmād dharmā ākāśa- samā ity
ucyaṃte. tad-yathā māyā na ca yathā khyāti tathā 'sti. na ca punaḥ
sarveṇaiva sarvaṃ nāsti tan māyā-kṛtaṃ. evaṃ na caite dharmā
yathaivābhilāpa-saṃstava-vaśena khyāṃti bālānāṃ tathaiva saṃvidyaṃte.
na ca punaḥ sarveṇa sarvaṃ na saṃvidyaṃte
pāramārthika-nirabhilāpy'ātmanā. te cānena naya-praveśena na saṃto nāsaṃta
ity advayā māyāvat. tasmān māyopamā ity ucyante. evaṃ hi bodhisattvaḥ
sarvasmāt dharma-dhātor na kiṃcid utkṣipati na ca kiṃcit pratikṣipati
nonī-karoti nādhikaṃ karoti na vināśayati. bhūtaṃ ca bhūtataḥ prajānāti.
tathaiva ca saṃprakāśayati.

No put-downs of others, no sense of rigidity (sounds like a very fluid and
ongoing process) -- just therapeutic description and analysis. Of course,
Richard will say something like so many posts on prapanca must be obsession,
he doesn't care what the primary texts themselves say or mean -- and that's
exactly why he still doesn't understand the term (or Nagarjuna, or how
Buddhists actually used the term). Or he'll duck the whole thing with a
dismissive characterization of yours truly (that he will deny has any
relation to an ad hominem).

Dan Lusthaus