Emptiness in Mulapariyayasutta

Discussion
1

I’ve been reading the Mūlapariyāya Sutta and something clicked for me, but I’m not sure whether this fits traditional interpretations.

The sutta doesn’t seem to say that perceiving earth, diversity, or even extinguishment is the problem. Rather, the problem seems to begin with “conceiving” (maññati). My current understanding is that perception is functionally necessary and useful , but conceiving is an additional step where a conceptual designation is taken further than simple recognition.

For example, when the sutta says "let them not conceive it as Earth, let them not conceive it in Earth ", and so on, I wonder whether this points to a kind of reification: treating the concept as though it corresponds to something inherently established, rather than merely functioning as a designation.

This interpretation suddenly made sense to me of why the same structure is applied not only to earth and water but also to diversity, oneness, all, and even extinguishment. The issue would not be the particular object being perceived - as this has functional necessity - but the act of conceiving itself: such that designation is imagined to reside within the designation itself (such as ‘bottleness’ in a ‘bottle’) and is reminiscent of the mulamadhyamakakarika.

Is this a reasonable way to read the sutta? If not, where does it diverge from how the text is usually understood?

4 Likes
2

Yes, I believe it’s the conceiving that is the problem. Here are some other suttas that use the term.

6 Likes
3

Not only conceiving, but conceiving it in relation to a “self” and then delighting in that:

… pathaviṁ meti maññati, pathaviṁ abhinandati

… they conceive of earth as “mine” and they delight in earth.

This is how each repeated part ends. You really miss a lot of the meaning when it’s abbreviated! The first time you read a sutta like this, I really encourage you to fully expand the ellipses in your head as best you can.

See Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s introduction to this sutta as well as

Bhante Sujato's note

To “conceive” or “imagine” (maññati) is, according to the commentary, to think in terms of a “self”, proliferating experience through craving, conceit, or views until it is constructed for me. This usage draws upon such passages as Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.20, where due to ignorance, a person “imagines” in a dream the fearful things they saw when awake, or at the highest level, “imagines I am this all” (ahamevedaṁ sarvo’smīti manyate). | Each of the five phrases takes the “perception of earth as earth” and conceives, imagines, or construes that perception in progressively more differentiated and objectified ways, until it becomes something that is owned and enjoyed.

So it’s a progression. It starts off with just bare perceiving, but even these refined, “spiritual” experiences (conditioned on ignorant conceiving) can become just one more thing for the ego to attach to and feed on.

5 Likes
4

Thank you for the references, I’ve started looking through them and they have been very helpful.

I was wondering whether my understanding of maññanā is moving in the right direction.

My current thought is that the problem is not simple recognition or designation. For example, if I perceive a hamburger, I may recognise it as food and distinguish its various characteristics for practical and communicative purposes. That seems functionally necessary.

What I am wondering is whether conceiving begins when the object becomes associated with anticipated future states. For example, I might think: “Eating this will satisfy me” or “This will put me into a pleasant state.” At that point the object is no longer simply recognised as food, but becomes a discrete conceptual object associated with predicted future outcomes.

The value of those anticipated states (satisfaction, pleasure, delight, etc.) then seems to become fused with the object itself. As a result, if the hamburger is taken away, the disappointment is greater than merely losing some food, because the anticipated future state has also been frustrated. The object appears to have contained the satisfaction, even though the satisfaction was really part of a larger network of expectations and predictions.

Reading the passage in SN 35.91 made me wonder whether conceiving is not merely recognising a thing, but progressively attributing ownership, and associated qualities to it. For example, we may recognise the processes motion, pleasure, satisfaction, or other understandings, but then these themselves become conceptual objects to which further significance can be attached. The significance appears to one as residing in the object itself, rather than in the network of associations and expectations surrounding it.

Would this be a reasonable way of understanding maññanā, or am I still missing something important from how the term is used in the suttas? In particular, I am wondering whether the attachment to future states is part of what the Buddha is pointing to when he speaks about conceiving and then delighting in things.

5

Thank you for the clarification and the references. Your point about expanding the ellipses was especially helpful, I realised I was focusing almost entirely on the conceiving aspect and not paying enough attention to how each section culminates in conceiving things as “mine” and then delighting in them.

I’ve started looking through some of the related suttas and they’re helping me get a much clearer picture of how maññanāis being used across the Nikāyas. I appreciate you taking the time to point me in that direction.

1 Like
6

It might help you that, for example, sakkayaditthi, or associating with khandas is a fetter abandoned on the stream-entry.

However, the latent feeling “I am”, “I-making” is abandoned only at nibbana, and this latent tendency to conceive of “I am” is called Mana.

1 Like