The Ball of Honey Madhupiṃṇika Sutta (MN 18) · 莲华归心开放中文佛学资料库

- suttas - - evening talks - short morning talks - lectures - guided meditations - talk collections - other themes - chants - - - - à¹à¸à¸¢ - Franā§ais - Espaā±ol - - Portuguāªs - Ð ÑÑÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹ - - - Ð£ÐºÑÐ°ÑÐ½ÑÑÐºÐ° Submit Search - Home - Suttas - MN - MN 18 The Ball of Honey ## Browse Suttas Go to Majjhima Nikṅya index MN index Show outline show outline ## Outline - (Top) - Introduction const prefersTocHidden = window.sessionStorage.getItem('user-prefers-toc-hidden') ?? window.localStorage.getItem('user-prefers-toc-hidden') ?? false; if (prefersTocHidden) { const tocToggleButton = document.getElementById("tocToggle"); const bookToc = document.getElementById("bookToc"); bookToc.classList.remove("show"); tocToggleButton.setAttribute("aria-expanded", false); tocToggleButton.querySelectorAll("[data-show-text]").forEach(el => { el.setAttribute("data-hide-text", el.innerText); el.innerText = el.getAttribute("data-show-text"); }); } ## The Ball of Honey Madhupiṃṇika SuttaÂ Â (MNÂ 18) ## Introduction This discourse plays a central role in the early Buddhist analysis of conflict. As might be expected, the blame for conflict lies within, in the unskillful habits of the mind, rather than without. The culprit in this case is a habit called papaā±ca. Unfortunately, none of the early texts give a clear definition of what the word papaā±ca means, so itâs hard to find a precise English equivalent for the term. However, they do give a clear analysis of how papaā±ca arises, how it leads to conflict, and how it can be ended. In the final analysis, these are the questions that matter—more than the precise definition of terms—so we will deal with them first before proposing a few possible translation equivalents for the word. Three passages in the discourses—DNÂ 21, MNÂ 18, and SnÂ 4:11—map the causal processes that give rise to papaā±ca and lead from papaā±ca to conflict. Because the Buddhist analysis of causality is generally non-linear, with plenty of room for feedback loops, the maps vary in some of their details. In DNÂ 21, the map reads like this: the perceptions & categories of papaā±ca > thinking > desire > dear-&-not-dear > envy & stinginess > rivalry & hostility In SnÂ 4:11, the map is less linear and can be diagrammed like this: perception > the categories of papaā±ca perception > name & form > contact > appealing & unappealing > desire > dear-&-not-dear > stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes In MNÂ 18, the map is this: contact > feeling > perception > thinking > the perceptions & categories of papaā±ca In this last case, however, the bare outline misses some of the important implications of the way this process is phrased. In the full passage, the analysis starts out in an impersonal tone: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises [similarly with the rest of the six senses]. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling." Starting with feeling, the notion of an "agent"—in this case, the feeler—acting on "objects," is introduced: "What one feels, one perceives [labels in the mind]. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one ), # Right single quote ('â', papaā±cizes.â" Through the process of papaā±ca, the agent then becomes a victim of his/her own patterns of thinking: "Based on what a person papaā±cizes, the perceptions & categories of papaā±ca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses]." What are these perceptions & categories that assail the person who papaā±cizes? SnÂ 4:14 states that the root of the categories of papaā±ca is the perception, "I am the thinker." From this self-reflexive thought—in which one objectifies a "self," a thing corresponding to the concept of "I"— a number of categories can be derived: being/not-being, me/not-me, mine/not-mine, doer/done-to, signifier/signified. Once oneâs self becomes a thing under the rubric of these categories, itâs impossible not to be assailed by the perceptions & categories derived from these basic distinctions. When thereâs the sense of identification as a being that needs to feed (see KhpÂ 4), then based on the feelings arising from sensory contact, some feelings will seem appealing—worth feeding on—and others will seem worth pushing away. From this there grows desire, which comes into conflict with the desires of others who are also feeding because they, too, engage in papaā±ca. This is how inner objectification breeds external contention. How can this process be ended? Through a shift in perception, caused by the way one attends to feelings, using the categories of appropriate attention (see MNÂ 2). As the Buddha states in DNÂ 21, rather than viewing a feeling as an appealing or unappealing thing, one should look at it as part of a causal process: When a particular feeling is pursued, do skillful or unskillful qualities increase in the mind? If skillful qualities increase, the feeling may be pursued. If unskill