On the Translation of a Verse from Snp 3.6

Discussion
1

At Snp 3.6, there is the following stanza:

Anuvicca papañcanāmarūpaṁ,
Ajjhattaṁ bahiddhā ca rogamūlaṁ;
Sabba­roga­mūla­bandhanā pamutto,
Anuvidito tādi pavuccate tathattā.

@sujato translates:

Having studied proliferation and name & form
inside and out—the root of disease;
released from the root bondage to all disease:
one such is rightly called ‘studied’.

Bodhi’s translation, for all intents and purposes here, does not differ in any significant way.

My question/comment is especially about the first (two) lines. Most translators I have seen translate ‘* papañcanāmarūpaṁ*’ as ‘proliferation and name-and-form.’ However, I feel that this may not be what is intended; I’m looking to see if this holds up.

Olalde, in her book on nāmarūpa, mentioned that this interpretation is problematic because the second line says that this is the ‘root of disease.’ But nāmarūpa is not the root of disease; it is just a resultant of kamma created out of the root of disease: usually craving, but perhaps papañca. Papañca is bound up with craving, conceit, and views, as well as the related asmīmāna and the proliferation of thoughts. Indeed, both at MN 18 and DN 21 we see how thoughts (vitakka) are bound up with papañca.

I believe there may be a clue to this connection at AN 9.14. The relevant passage is as follows:

“Samiddhi, based on what do thoughts arise in a person?”
“Kimārammaṇā, samiddhi, purisassa saṅkappavitakkā uppajjantī”ti?
“Based on name and form, sir.”
“Nāmarūpārammaṇā, bhante”ti.

Here, nāmarūpa — name-and-form — is the basis or support from which thoughts arise. That is, thoughts arise on the basis of all the various things in the world. I know that in the context of dependent arising nāmarūpa is primarily about our individual ‘name and form,’ however, in the Sutta Nipāta the sense of ‘nāmarūpa’ is often all nāmarūpa—the objects of the created world. This is the major Brahmanical sense, and would be expected from a collection like the Sutta Nipāta or Sabhiya Sutta. Here are some examples from the Snp of what I mean:

When a person sees, they see name and form,
Passaṁ naro dakkhati nāmarūpaṁ,
and having seen, they will know just these things.
Disvāna vā ñassati tānimeva;
Snp 4.13

One rid of greed, brahmin,
Sabbaso nāmarūpasmiṁ,
for the whole realm of name and form,
Vītagedhassa brāhmaṇa;
Snp 5.12

Now, taking the following points in mind:

  • nāmarūpa is not the root of disease
  • the cessation of papañca is the cessation of suffering (MN 18, nippapañca = Nibbāna, etc.)
  • papañca is related to the proliferation of thoughts in terms of craving, conceit, etc.
  • thoughts arise on the basis of nāmarūpa, i.e. all the phenomena one is conscious of

I would say that ‘papañcanāmarūpa’ should mean something along the lines of “the proliferation of name-and-form.” That is, the proliferation of concepts of identity that come from all the perceptions/thoughts of nāmarūpa. Alternatively, one could argue that this refers to ‘internal nāmarūpa,’ and is thus the proliferation of identity around one’s individual aggregation of elements (nāmarūpa). This is clarified by the third line which says “inside and out,” and thus I think it means the proliferation (papañca) of/pertaining to/about all nāmarūpa — internal (one’s individual person) and external (all the things of the world).

The proposed translation then, in full, would be:

Having studied the proliferation of name-and-form
inside and out — the root of disease;
released from the root bondage to all disease:
one such is rightly called ‘studied’.

Is this linguistically sound for the more educated and well-versed Pāli scholars? Could it be reconsidered as a translation? Any objections to the reasoning?

Mettā :pray:

4 Likes
3

It looks like sanna is the root (see bolded text below). Given that perception parses sensory input in light of past experiences, this would make sense. Form in the passage below clearly is an abbreviation for name and form in order to conform to the meter.

4

I think this probably oversimplifies what MN18 is saying;

“Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions.
“Yatonidānaṁ, bhikkhu, purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti.

If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise,
Ettha ce natthi abhinanditabbaṁ abhivaditabbaṁ ajjhositabbaṁ.

just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and disputes, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies.
Esevanto rāgānusayānaṁ, esevanto paṭighānusayānaṁ, esevanto diṭṭhānusayānaṁ, esevanto vicikicchānusayānaṁ, esevanto mānānusayānaṁ, esevanto bhavarāgānusayānaṁ, esevanto avijjānusayānaṁ, esevanto daṇḍā­dāna­satthā­dāna­kalaha­vi­g­gaha­vivāda­tuvaṁ­tuvaṁ­pesuñña­musāvādā­na­ṁ.

This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.”
Etthete pāpakā akusalā dhammā aparisesā nirujjhantī”ti.

That is what the Buddha said.
Idamavoca bhagavā.

So in the original statement by the Buddha, it’s the not finding “anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these (proliferations) arise” that is “where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over” (i.e nibanna).

Mahākaccāna’s analysis can make it sound like the cessation of proliferation itself is nibanna, but a moments reflection tells us that this cannot be correct, as then the second jhana, where vitakka ceases, would be nibanna, as proliferation depends on vitakka, as per Mahākaccāna:

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.
Cakkhuñcāvuso, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vitakketi, yaṁ vitakketi taṁ papañceti, yaṁ papañceti tatonidānaṁ purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti atītā­nāga­ta­pa­c­cu­p­pa­n­nesu cakkhuviññeyyesu rūpesu.

When there is what’s known as thought, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’.
Vitakkapaññattiyā sati papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­samu­dā­caraṇa­paññattiṁ paññā­pessa­tī­ti­—­ṭhāna­me­taṁ vijjati.

So what the Buddha is saying is that the source of proliferation is our attachment to sense contacts, and achieving non-attachment means proliferation will naturally cease, the Mahākaccāna analysis makes proliferation the “source” of what is due to proliferation, but this is simply a way of wedging the contact dependence formula into the sutta, and should not be taken literally (as this would make it nonsensical, and give rise to the second jhana as enlightenment issue).

for further reference, here is basically every word in the 4 principle Nikayas about the issue:

For he is able to recollect the caste, names, clans, life-span, chief disciples, and gatherings of disciples of the Buddhas of the past who have become completely extinguished, cut off proliferation, cut off the track, finished off the cycle, and transcended suffering.
Yatra hi nāma tathāgato atīte buddhe parinibbute chinnapapañce chinnavaṭume pariyādinnavaṭṭe sabbadukkhavītivatte jātitopi anussarissati, nāmatopi anussarissati, gottatopi anussarissati, āyuppamāṇatopi anussarissati, sāvakayugatopi anussarissati, sāvakasannipātatopi anussarissati:
DN14 and MN123 and SN35.83

“But what is the source of thought?”
“Vitakko pana, mārisa, kiṁnidāno kiṁsamudayo kiṁjātiko kiṁpabhavo; kismiṁ sati vitakko hoti; kismiṁ asati vitakko na hotī”ti?

“Concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions are the source of thoughts.”
“Vitakko kho, devānaminda, papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­nidāno papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­samudayo papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­jātiko papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­pabhavo­; papañcasaññāsaṅkhāya sati vitakko hoti; papañcasaññāsaṅkhāya asati vitakko na hotī”ti.
DN21

‘But is that goal for those who enjoy proliferation or for those who enjoy non-proliferation?’
‘Sā panāvuso, niṭṭhā papañcārāmassa papañcaratino udāhu nippapañcārāmassa nippapañcaratino’ti?

Answering rightly, the wanderers would say:
Sammā byākaramānā, bhikkhave, aññatitthiyā paribbājakā evaṁ byākareyyuṁ:

‘It’s for those who enjoy non-proliferation, not for those who enjoy proliferation.’
‘­ni­p­pa­pañcā­r­āmas­sā­vu­so, sā niṭṭhā nippapañcaratino, na sā niṭṭhā papañcārāmassa papañcaratino’ti.
MN11

“Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions.
“Yatonidānaṁ, bhikkhu, purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti.

If they don’t find anything worth approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which these arise,
Ettha ce natthi abhinanditabbaṁ abhivaditabbaṁ ajjhositabbaṁ.

just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and disputes, of accusations, divisive speech, and lies.
Esevanto rāgānusayānaṁ, esevanto paṭighānusayānaṁ, esevanto diṭṭhānusayānaṁ, esevanto vicikicchānusayānaṁ, esevanto mānānusayānaṁ, esevanto bhavarāgānusayānaṁ, esevanto avijjānusayānaṁ, esevanto daṇḍā­dāna­satthā­dāna­kalaha­vi­g­gaha­vivāda­tuvaṁ­tuvaṁ­pesuñña­musāvādā­na­ṁ.

This is where these bad, unskillful qualities cease without anything left over.”
Etthete pāpakā akusalā dhammā aparisesā nirujjhantī”ti.

That is what the Buddha said.
Idamavoca bhagavā.

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.
Cakkhuñcāvuso, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vitakketi, yaṁ vitakketi taṁ papañceti, yaṁ papañceti tatonidānaṁ purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti atītā­nāga­ta­pa­c­cu­p­pa­n­nesu cakkhuviññeyyesu rūpesu.

When there is what’s known as thought, it’s possible to point out what’s known as ‘being beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions’.
Vitakkapaññattiyā sati papañca­saññā­saṅkhā­samu­dā­caraṇa­paññattiṁ paññā­pessa­tī­ti­—­ṭhāna­me­taṁ vijjati.
MN18

he’s tamed, and doesn’t proliferate:
Dantassa nippapañcassa,
MN56

People generally let their perceptions proliferate;
Papañcasaññā itarītarā narā,

perceiving and proliferating, they are attracted.
Papañcayantā upayanti saññino;

When you’ve expelled all thoughts of the lay life,
Manomayaṁ gehasitañca sabbaṁ,

wander intent on renunciation.
Panujja nekkhammasitaṁ irīyati.
SN35.94

These are all proliferations: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’, ‘I will not be’, ‘I will have form’, ‘I will be formless’, ‘I will be percipient’, ‘I will be non-percipient’, ‘I will be neither percipient nor non-percipient.’
‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhave, papañcitametaṁ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti papañcitametaṁ, ‘bhavissan’ti …pe… ‘na bhavissan’ti … ‘rūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘arūpī bhavissan’ti … ‘saññī bhavissan’ti … ‘asaññī bhavissan’ti … ‘nevasaññīnāsaññī bhavissan’ti papañcitametaṁ.

Proliferation is a disease, a boil, a dart.
Papañcitaṁ, bhikkhave, rogo, papañcitaṁ gaṇḍo, papañcitaṁ sallaṁ.

So mendicants, you should train yourselves like this: ‘We will live with a heart free of proliferation.’
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, ‘nippapañcena cetasā viharissāmā’ti— evañhi vo, bhikkhave, sikkhitabbaṁ.
SN35.248

“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
“‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā natthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘both something else and nothing else exist’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthi ca natthi ca aññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘neither something else nor nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā nevatthi no natthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact.
Yāvatā, āvuso, channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ gati tāvatā papañcassa gati;

The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation.
yāvatā papañcassa gati tāvatā channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ gati.

When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”
Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā papañcanirodho papañcavūpasamo”ti.
AN4.173 and AN4.174

Take a mendicant who relishes work, talk, sleep, company, closeness, and proliferation. They love these things and like to relish them.
Idhāvuso, bhikkhu kammārāmo hoti kammarato kammārāmataṁ anuyutto, bhassārāmo hoti bhassarato bhassārāmataṁ anuyutto, niddārāmo hoti niddārato niddārāmataṁ anuyutto, saṅgaṇikārāmo hoti saṅgaṇikarato saṅgaṇikārāmataṁ anuyutto, saṁsaggārāmo hoti saṁsaggarato saṁsaggārāmataṁ anuyutto, papañcārāmo hoti papañcarato papañcārāmataṁ anuyutto.

A mendicant who lives life like this does not have a good death.
Evaṁ kho, āvuso, bhikkhu tathā tathā vihāraṁ kappeti yathā yathāssa vihāraṁ kappayato na bhaddakaṁ maraṇaṁ hoti, na bhaddikā kālakiriyā.
AN6.14

‘A Realized One exists after death’: this is just about craving. …
‘Hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, bhikkhu, taṇhāgatametaṁ …pe…

it’s just about perception …
saññāgatametaṁ …pe…

it’s an identification …
maññitametaṁ …pe…

it’s a proliferation …
papañcitametaṁ …pe…

it’s just about grasping …
upādānagatametaṁ …pe…

‘A Realized One exists after death’: this is a regret.
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, bhikkhu, vippaṭisāro eso;

‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death’: this is a regret.
‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, bhikkhu, vippaṭisāro eso;

‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death’: this is a regret.
‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, bhikkhu, vippaṭisāro eso;

‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death’: this is a regret.
‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’ti kho, bhikkhu, vippaṭisāro eso.

An unlearned ordinary person doesn’t understand regrets, their origin, their cessation, or the practice that leads to their cessation.
Assutavā, bhikkhu, puthujjano vippaṭisāraṁ nappajānāti, vippaṭisārasamudayaṁ nappajānāti, vippaṭisāranirodhaṁ nappajānāti, vippaṭisāra­nirodha­gāmi­niṁ paṭipadaṁ nappajānāti.
AN7.54

Metta

1 Like
5

‘Nippapañca’ — non-papañca — is a synonym or epithet for nibbāna several times. This is explicit at SN 43.13-43

At SN 35.248, ‘proliferations’ is a synonym for ‘conceit.’ It refers to any sense of ‘I’ that exists in relation to existing, perceiving, etc. The ending of conceit, or the ending of these proliferations, is nibbāna. Similar to AN 7.54 you’ve cited: the product of papañca (i.e. proliferations) are the same as conceits, cravings, etc.

At DN 21, thoughts spring from papañcasaññāsankhā. That is, cutting off thoughts temporarily does not end their source; it is only the ending of papañca that will ultimately tame all thoughts and allow one to be in complete control (arahantship).

Nibbāna is the end of all craving. But craving is absent in the 2nd jhāna. One would not oppose me saying that the end of craving is nibbāna because it ends in jhāna though; what we mean is that nibbāna is the full, permanent cessation of craving via its uprooting. Likewise for papñca: the jhānas only suppress, they do not uproot. And still, concepts of identity and proliferations still underlie those jhānas until arahantship; they are just not active while in deep samādhi in the same way.

Moreover, while vitakkavicāra ceases in the 2nd jhāna, this state is still a state of perception which is what underlies papañca. So while a very tangible, visible way to interact with the tendency to papañca is to observe and restrain thinking, papañca in its entirety can involve more subtle notions/concepts built from perception that stick around in how we cognize the world.

I’d close with the fact that even if you didn’t agree with my interpretation of papañcanāmarūpa, either way Snp 3.6 says that papañca is the root of disease. The question is just: is nāmarūpa a separate item that is also the root, or is this compound one thing. This poem lists all kinds of forma of defilement; to say papañca is the root is just one avenue it takes out of many. It’s not necessarily meant to be exhaustive and full of every nuance of doctrine.

Mettā :slight_smile:

2 Likes
6

Normal perception underlies, or perhaps is, papanca and so name and form. The second jhana is that state. Maintaining that sweet spot of seeing merely the seen and hearing merely the heard so there is no you in that takes practice, mindfulness and real expertise. Is that what you are saying or are you implying something more like deep formless states are required?

7

Yes, i got carried away with the papañcanāside and never got to the nāmarūpa side :slight_smile:

I have been feeling lately like i dont understand poetry, but in this case my sense is that your right, the compound more or less means “making many thoughts about what is manifest” or “obsessing over phenomena”.

I guess my point was that proliferation is the product of craving, and it is the Buddhas statment of finding nothingnworth getting attached to in what one percieves that leads to the end of proliferation, not the ending of proliferation that leads to not getting attached to what one perceives.

As for

There are dozens amd dozens of epithets and synonyms for nibanna, nibanna itself is mostly used as a synonym in DN and MN to refer to onenwho is extinguished, i dont read much into them to be honest.

Finally i am curious if anyone can enlighten me about the few occurances of papañcanā at SN1.47 and SN3.24 where it appears to mean something like “well digger”?

8

Yes, it’s a good point doctrinally, but there’s a reason translators (adding Norman to Bodhi and myself) translate it the way we do.

We have a compound in accusative, papañcanāmarūpaṁ, which agrees with rogamūlaṁ in the next line.

Just to note, Norman discusses the detail that papañcanāmarūpaṁ can be considered either a compound or with the first element as separate, and the accusative ending elided metri causa, which if restored would be papañcaṁ nāmarūpaṁ. This would not affect the translation.

He also notes the Mahāvastu version, which I leave here for comparison.

abhāvetva prapaṁcanāmarūpaṁ
adhyātmaṁ vahirdhā ca rāgabhūtaṁ |
yo samāno rāgamūle baṁdhanapramukto
anuvidito tāyi pravuccati tathatvā

There are several differences, but the grammar of the terms we’re considering remains the same.

So the problem is, since nāmarūpaṁ agrees with rogamūlaṁ, we have to treat them together. If an oblique relation between papañca and nāmarūpa was intended, we would use something like nāmarūpe (“proliferation regarding nāmarūpa”) or nāmarūpā (“proliferation from nāmarūpa”) etc. But these are ruled out.

The basic grammatical options that remain are:

  • the three items are a list: papañca, nāmarūpa, and rogamūla
  • more idiomatically, that rogamūla is an adjective qualifying papañca and nāmarūpa. This is of course the option the cited translators followed.

The Mahavastu version opens up a third possibility, since instead of “root of disease” here (i.e. a synonym of “craving”) it has rāgabhūtaṁ, “produced by desire”. This would indeed apply equally to papañca and nāmarūpa, so it removes the doctrinal problem. But the Mahavastu version is otherwise quite odd (abhāvetva?) and seems corrupt or confused. Anyway, our job is to translate the Pali even if it doesn’t make sense.

So, unless I have misconstrued the grammar, the only solution I can see that resolves the docrtinal problem while respecting the Pali text as it stands would be option 1 above, which would give us something like:

Having studied proliferation, and name & form,
and the root of disease inside and out;
released from the root bondage to all disease:
one such is rightly called ‘studied’.

5 Likes
9

Thank you, bhante! This was helpful. Translating ‘rōgamūla’ as one of the items in the list makes sense. It also matches with ‘studied’ — that there is a list of several things that take deep meditative investigation adds up for a Buddhist form of ‘study.’

That said, I am a bit confused (due to lack of Pāli grammar knowledge I think). Would it not be possible to take Norman’s first possibility, i.e. that papañcanāmarūpaṁ is a compound, and have this agree with ‘rogamūlaṁ’? Ven. Ñānadīpa translated it along the lines of “the expanse that is name and matter.” So I’m imagining a possibility like

Having studied the expanse that is name & form
and the root of disease inside and out

It combines the listing of rogamūla but takes ‘papañcanāmarūpa’ as a compound. I find this compound very plausible in the context of Brahmanical dialectics (‘nāmarūpa’), and it seems to match up with the Mhv version as well. That said, this rendering of papañca would, to my knowledge, be unique in the canon(?). In the Mandukya Upanisad and commentary by Swami Krishnananda, you’ll see talk of “nama rupa prapañca” which is the network/expanse of name(s) and form(s) which is all manifest existence. This seems almost too coincidental? But maybe it is coincidental; the order of the compound is reversed after all.

So, is the above rendering grammatically sound, and does it seem plausible to you? This may be out there but trying to see the possibilities.

Mettā

10

I mean grammatically yes, but that’s not how papañca is really used.

Do you have a reference for that? I’m not finding it.

https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/corpustei/transformations/html/sa_mANDUkyopaniSad-comm.htm

Indeed, nāmarūpapapañca would be the “proliferation of name and form”. But that isn’t what we’ve got.

Yes and no.