This question is based on the following Sutta.
The ball of honey.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html
The Pali from MN 18 is:
vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti, yaṃ papañceti tatonidānaṃ purisaṃ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā .
What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her
what one feels one perceives; what one perceives one reasons about; what one reasons about obsesses one; what obsesses one is the origin of the number of perceptions and obsessions which assail a man
So ‘vitakka’ here sounds like it refers to an initial thought about something and then ‘papanca’ sounds like obsessing over or proliferating or building up that thought or idea.
2 Likes
Oh, I see the point now.
Is papañca objectification or proliferation?
With metta
Are Vitakka and Vicara wholesome or unwholesome or both?
Is Papanca wholesome or unwholesome or both?
I would guess:
Vitakka and Vicara can be wholesome or unwholesome.
Papanca is always unwholesome.
However, in MN 18, it appears vitakka is unwholesome.
1 Like
What are the Pali words for these?
Has Vitakka/ Vicara got more than one objects or only one?
Has Papanca got more than one object or only one?
For an in-depth discussion of papanca as per the sutta-s, cf
http://www.audiodharma.org/series/16/talk/3019/
The blurb:
“Papañca – When discussing the sources of conflict—inner and outer—the Buddha pointed to a type of thinking he called papañca. This term is often translated as “conceptual proliferation,” but a survey of how it’s discussed in the Pali Canon shows that it has less to do with the amount of thinking and more with the way thinking is framed. This daylong course will focus on understanding what papañca is, how it happens, when it has its uses, and how the need for it can eventually be overcome.”
Thanks all.
Based on your answers I came to the following conclusion.
Papanca is the unwholsome Vicara just before the first Jhana.
Further reading.
‘What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.’ Madhupindika sutta MN18
Objectification is one thing and as a result there is proliferation.
I always thought papanca was objectification (also) in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’, therefore setting the ground for conflict to arise. It might also be the cause for duality.
With metta