I usually see ‘sanna’ translated to ‘perception’, but perception in English perception has both narrow and broad usages. I am trying to determine how best to understand ‘sanna’ in Snp 4.2.
Note that Snp 4.11 uses both the narrow and broad usages of sanna.
I did a search with Google and found the following in an abstract. I have included the entire abstract for greater context, but I have bolded the portion I am most interested in.
Here sanna is said to be best understood in terms of recognition and naming. I have been interpreting perception more broadly to include sensing to the point of creating forms.
How broadly you interpret sanna makes a big difference when it comes to what complete understanding of sanna means. If I take sanna to mean recognition and naming in Snp 4.2, fully understanding it including its cessation is to “see” bare, unembellished forms. If I use the term broadly as in the way it is used to Snp 4.11 to make forms disappear, complete understanding of sanna requires a formless attainment.
The canon as a whole is all over the map on what levels of attainments of samadhi are necessary(Right Samadhi) so I do not think simply proof texting out of context is useful. I think only proof texting from the Atthakavagga are pertinent.
If I consider “normal perception” in Snp 4.11 to mean recognition and naming, the way to make forms disappear still make sense in my opinion. Note that the Buddha does not get involved in the dispute over which formless attainment is the highest attainment mentioned in the last few verses of Snp 4.11. I think that leaves open that the only necessary attainment is the cessation of recognition and naming. In other words, no formless attainment is necessary.
The fact that sanna is not qualified in Snp 4.2 like it is in Snp 4.11 make me think its usage is the more narrow “normal perception” which would be recognition and naming according to the abstract.
I am interested in whether or not there is a compelling argument to the contrary.