[Buddha-l] Prapanca

[Jim Anderson]

Richard,

> Jim, what are the dates of the texts you are citing? Is there any chance
> the notion of papa~nca evolved from the time of its use in the canon to
> the time of later texts, such as the commentaries?

My information on dates (from Geiger) may be outdated. The first text,
Saaratthadiipanii (Sp-.t) by Saariputta, is no earlier than the 12th cent.
and the second one ,Abhidhammatthasa"ngaha by Anuruddha, seems to  be
somewhat earlier. As to your second question, I am hesitant to say yes
without having done a full investigation of the etymological history of the
term and its uses in the Pali corpus. Papa~nca (sing. or pl.) is rarely
found by itself in the Tipitaka but is fairly frequent in compounds. The
Buddha uses the term and even one of the A.t.thakathaa-s has it as part of
its title (Papa~ncasuudanii). Sp-.t is by no means the first commentary to
explain papa~ncaa in terms of the three kinds or types as mentioned earlier.
A similar explanation is found in the Mahaaniddesa, an old commentary on
parts of Sn, which most likely belongs to an earlier period than the works
of Naagaarjuna. Here's the passage:

sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~ncasa"nkhaati. papa~ncaayeva papa~ncasa"nkhaa
ta.nhaapapa~ncasa"nkhaa, di.t.thipapa~ncasa"nkhaa, maanapapa~ncasa"nkhaa
sa~n~naanidaanaa sa~n~naasamudayaa sa~n~naajaatikaa sa~n~naapabhavaati –
sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~ncasa"nkhaa. --- Nd1 2.280 ad Sn 880d

"sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~ncasa"nkhaa" was spoken by the Buddha.

>> Papa~nca (or Skt. prapa~nca) is often translated as "proliferation" but
>> the nibbacana or etymological definition uses the active verb
>> "papa~ncenti" which makes the noun an agent-noun (kattaasaadhana).
>
> Surely, the actual derivation of prapañca is pra + pañca. The verbal
> root prapañcayati is a denominative verb, that is, a verb derived from a
> noun.

No disagreement here. I hadn't thought of it as a denominative verb. It
could also be a causative. It is hard to be sure of the meaning of the verb
in the context of "va.t.tasmi.m satte papa~ncenti". I take "satte" as the
acc. pl. and object of the verb. The verb is glossed as "vitthaarenti".at
Mp-.t 3.235. In a causative sense, it could mean "to cause (beings) to
proliferate or spread out (in the universe)".

> In grammatical literature, a prapañca is a restatement of an obscure
> passage in clearer language. It also has a pejorative sense of saying
> more than is necessary to make a point, or using useless words (vyartha
> paada). This is how Dharmakîrti uses the term. I have seen nothing in
> Nâgârjuna suggesting that the term means anything other than that to
> him, except that it seems to connote not only using more words than
> necessary but having more thoughts than necessary.

I have come across that sense in Mmd (an 11th cent. commentary on Kacc) in
the phrase "alam atippapa~ncena" --- "enough with the over-elaboration !".
At least that's what I think it means.

> I think the word prapañca may be a good example of what Luis Gómez has
> called cypher terms, that is, terms that have no fixed meaning but that
> convey either approval or disapproval. Clearly prapañca is invariably
> negative in Buddhist usage, but it is not at all obvious that the term
> has a fixed meaning. Indeed, it is obvious from passages that you and
> Dan and I have cited that it had very different denotations to different
> Buddhists. And so I think it is quite acceptable for modern Buddhists to
> continue the tradition of using the word as a pejorative label for
> whatever kind of thinking they happen to find pointless or
> counterproductive.

I have no problem with this.

Jim Anderson

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]