One word in Pali Canon seems to be especially challenging for translators to convey. This word is "*papañca*" (e.g. MN18 , DN21 , Sn 4.11 , AN4.173 ). Some attempts at translating *papañca* include "exaggeration", "proliferation ", "association ", "conceptualization ", "objectification ", and "reification ". What is *papañca* and what is it's significance in Buddhism? How is it used in Pali Canon and what is it's referent in real life? How is *papañca* (*prapañca* in Sanskrit) explained by Mahayana philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Asanga, and Tsongkhapa?

I read the following ideas on the internet but could not find an authoritative source for these ideas: > how one gains faith after loosing faith (with wisdom, conviction) and > balances wisdom and faith. This is in fact a very important aspect of > many of the Buddhas, as well as sects of Buddhism teachings. Gelugpa > teachings of lojong explain about the importance of balancing faith > and wisdom "like 2 wings of a bird", as well as faith of importance in > theravada school (until one reaches state of stream entry) > > Gelugpa teachings of lojong explain about the importance of balancing > faith and wisdom "like 2 wings of a bird", as well as faith of > importance in theravada school (until one reaches state of stream > entry) All I could find on the internet was: > Just as the birds fly through God's creation on two graceful wings, we > fly to the truth of the Church on wings of faith and reason. > > [Minnesota Catholicism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Crookston) Are faith & wisdom two wings of a bird (somewhere) in Buddhism?

I read the following on the internet: > Vipassana, the tranquil mind, is the core. > > When emotions arise, the tranquil mind observes and assesses before > the conscious is involved. > >The tranquil mind will recognise the burning heart and dualise > the self. When the self becomes two, the emotions don't rule the mind > and the mind doesn't rule the emotions. Is vipassana the tranquil mind? Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness? What is meant by dualizing the self? How does the tranquil mind dualize the self? How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

I read the following comment on the internet: > *A corpse has lost its life-force, hence a corpse, dead. A meditator has attainment would be free from disease, for the vibrant > internal-breath kept one healthy.* Are there any suttas that distinguish between the life force and the breathing?

I read the following on the internet: > According to Anderson, a long recognized feature of the Theravada > canon is that it lacks an "overarching and comprehensive structure of > the path to nibbana." The sutras form a network or matrix, which have > to be taken together. What is this suppposed to mean?

I read the concepts of "standalone sankhara" vs " composite phenomena" on the internet. Do these two concepts have any basis in any school/s of Buddhism? If so, which one/ones?

[DN 15](https://suttacentral.net/dn15/en/sujato) & also [AN 7.44 exclusively](https://suttacentral.net/an7.44/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) include the utterance of the "seven stations of consciousness", where the later six equate with the six of the eight jhanas, namely: > *1. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body (kāyā) and diverse in perception (saññino), such as human beings, some gods (devā) and > some beings in the underworld.* > > *2. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn (ābhinibbattā) in Brahmā’s Group (**brahmakāyikā**) > through the first absorption* > > *3. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance (**ābhassarā**).* > > *4. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory (**subhakiṇhā**).* > > *5. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form (rūpa). With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not > focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, > they have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of **infinite space**.* > > *6. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have > been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of **infinite consciousness**.* > > *7. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they > have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of **nothingness**.* The deva (godly) abodes attained with each rupa jhana are listed in AN 4.123, namely, *brahmakāyikā*, *ābhassarā*, *subhakiṇhā* & *vehapphalānaṃ*. Now, the above utterance in DN 15 & AN 7.44 omit the 4th jhana or gods of abundant fruit (*vehapphalānaṃ*) found in AN 4.123. Related to this is [AN 9.24](https://suttacentral.net/an9.24/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) , which refers to the 4th jhana as 'non-percipient' (asaññino). My question is what are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean (for example, why do the permutations of 'diversity' and 'unity' exist in the various jhana & states of being) and why, in particular, does this utterance omit the 4th jhana?

I read the following on the internet, where a person either claimed to be a Noble One or, otherwise, was exhorting with a Lion's Roar the path to stream-entry or possibly Full Enlightenment. The hairs and goose bumps stood up upon my skin as I read with awe the following Lion's Roar: > A worldling without a knowledge of past lives would not see that as > "incest". > > [SN 15.14](https://suttacentral.net/sn15.14/en/sujato) > > > At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has > not previously been your mother. Why is that? Transmigration has > no known beginning. This is quite enough for you to become > disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.” My question is how does believing "*It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother*" result in becoming disillusioned, dispassionate and freed regarding all conditions?

The [Dasaratha Jātaka](https://suttacentral.net/ja461/en/rouse?reference=none&highlight=false) says Gotama (our current Buddha) was Rama in a past life and his wife (Gotama's son's Rahula's mother Yaśodharā) was his sister Sita in the same past life. In this past life, Rama appeared to marry his sister Sita (who, according to the translation, became Rama's queen-consort). Then later Rama was reborn as Gotama and Sita was reborn as Yaśodharā (Rahula's mother). Was Gotama's marriage to Yaśodharā an example of 'incest'?

I read the following comment on the secular internet in relation to the closing paragraphs of DN 2, where a King or layperson made an admission of a moral transgression/sin to the Buddha: > Yes that confession is especially by and to monks -- "the discipline" > as you quoted it is the Vinaya. Does the Pali word "vinaya" in the suttas always refer to the Vinaya Piṭaka, i.e., the Pāṭimokkha rules made exclusively for monks & nuns?

In a previous question I asked whether the Theravada posits the selflessness of phenomena? Where the best answer I understood to essentially state that it does not. At least, it did sound like there was an important difference between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. That is, Theravada regards the self of persons as not truly existent while the self of phenomena may or may not be. Further, the latter is not deemed an important question. This is not in agreement with the Mahayana madhyamaka schools AFAIK who I think near uniformly disagree. > In my opinion, the Theravada view according to the Pali suttas imply > that: > > 1. The self (of persons) is not truly existent. > > 2. Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or > not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of > suffering. (See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Parable of the > Simsapa Leaves and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables) However, in a comment to this recent answer it was asserted by the same that 'papanca' of objects is essentially equivalent to what the Mahayana schools call the selflessness of persons. I'm confused as this seems to be in tension with the previous. What is the solution or is it just my misunderstanding? Is there any crucial difference between the emptiness of persons and emptiness of objects where the former is to be regarded as definitely non-truly existent while the latter question is not important? Is there some Pali suttas which will illustrate this difference in emptiness between the two selves? Is the 'papanca' of the self of persons different from the 'papanca' of the self of phenomena? What am I missing? Isn't it the case that SN 22.95 is talking about this 'papanca' of phenomena? Doesn't it compare it to an illusion? If so, then on what basis is it concluded that whether phenomena are truly existent is immaterial in Theravada?

Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor) > Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate > > Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate > > The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on. > >If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist. There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths". ***Can that phrase be read to mean*** **emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness** So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing. I don't think it's a normal interpretation? ---------- For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical. > *Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics > especially : separating something into component parts or constituent > elements.* >*Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.*

Further to my last question on reification , I want to know the specificity of the application. Gathering from the answers ; > ...reifications are overcome by questioning them. and > Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching > your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See > how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what > situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions > these states in you. This paragraph talks about much higher-level mental formulations and emotions which I have overcome. I am much interested or dealing with reifications suggested in Honey cake sutta which this answer points to, Buddha says; > Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from > the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth > approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which > these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to > desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and > ignorance. Further Venerable Mahākaccāna explains this as; > 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***. Based on Mahākaccāna's explain, I want to ask, for an e.g. I see a Banana kept on a table, my eye-consciousness arises based on my eye and sight of banana, and contact is made and based on that a feeling arises. What I feel I perceive and what I perceive I think about. **In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new model?**

I read the following verbal kamma on the internet: > Karma can be expressed like the magnetic push or pull that defines the > universal law of 'cause and effect'. Karma follows a similar rule as > le Chatelier's principle in chemistry and in physics Newton's third > law of motion What is the universal law of cause & effect in Buddhism? Does kamma define the universal law of cause & effect? Does kamma also involve an equal and opposite reaction?

I read the following on the internet: > In an uncultivated individual the emotions rule the self. This is the > result of lack of understanding of Anatta and somehow the individual > is putting conscious effort into the stagnation of their naturally > dynamic emotions. > > Emotions are naturally dynamic and a result of environmental > influence, which is also dynamic - so in that sense Anatta is > applicable. What are "dynamic emotions" in Buddhism? Does anatta or its realisation stop the stagnation of naturally dynamic emotions?

I read the following intentional thought on the internet: > Intention is directed conscious energy. When we think about doing > something, where does that energy go? Thoughts like these are created > before every conscious action as a means to mitigate the quantity and > quality of the repercussion. If an individual cultivates an intention > enough, the chances of inadvertently performing the action is more > within reason. 1. What is "conscious energy" in Buddhism? 2. In Buddhism, does "conscious intention" mean "wise intention"? 2. If cultivating intention leads to action more within reason, are ignorant actions without intention or unintentional in Buddhism?

I read the following on the internet: > Working for DoD contractors could give a very fat paycheck. However, > there're ethical issues involved. If you decide to work for them, make > sure to make it clear you'll work for defensive capabilities, not > offensive ones. There're a lot of other areas DoD needs people to > build up their defensive programs, and these should be legit from an > ethical standpoint. Is inventing "defensive" biological weapons right livelihood?

I read the following on the internet: > Notice there's a wide spectrum on the Samatha/Vipassana scale, but > even on the extreme spectrum of Vipassana, the "dry-insight", there's > still element of Samatha ( the khanika/Samadhi/Momentary Concentration, > see Ven. Gunaratana's "The Jhanas" for more details ). It is said the Buddhist commentaries refer to Khanika (momentary), Upacara (neighborhood) and Appana (attainment) Samadhi. Are 'samatha' & 'samadhi' synonymous? Does Buddhism refer to Khanika/Momentary Samatha?

I read the following in the internet: > All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the > Dhamma...'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a > feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure > nor pain.,,,Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One: > "Whatever is felt comes under stress (yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmin)" > Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"? If all feelings are unpleasant, why are some feelings called "pleasant"?

I read the following on the internet: > According to my present understanding of Dhamma, nobody will be able > to shake my faith. Can a puthujjana (unenlightened commoner still immersed in self instinct) have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma? What happens if a puthujjana does a meditation retreat and freaks out when in solitude or experiencing ego-death? What are the conditions or criteria for unshakable faith (acalā saddha)?