So I have heard. * [A discussion on this Sutta](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTM20wVhHg). At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Sakyans, near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Monastery.
Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Kapilavatthu for alms. He wandered for alms in Kapilavatthu. After the meal, on his return from almsround, he went to the Great Wood, plunged deep into it, and sat at the root of a young wood apple tree for the day’s abiding.
Daṇḍapāṇi the Sakyan, while going for a walk, plunged deep into the Great Wood. He approached the Buddha and exchanged pleasantries with him. When the amicable and cordial talk was over, he stood to one side leaning on his staff, and said to the Buddha, “What is the ascetic’s doctrine? What does he assert?”
“Friend, my doctrine is such that one does not contend with anyone in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans. And it is such that the brahmin who lives detached from sensuality, without doubting, stripped of worry, and without craving for any kind of being, is not underlain by perceptions. * “Non-contention” does not mean that the Buddha refrained from pointing out the fallacies in the views that were an obstacle to the liberation he realized (e.g., [MN 11](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn11), [MN 14](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn14), [MN 22](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn22)). On being “underlain”, see SN 12.38. This is also what is meant with “harboring [a hindrance] internally, one meditates”, in MN 108, AN 11.8, and it's the aspect that the unskilled monk overlooks in [SN 47.8](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=sn47.8). This is the reason why the traditional approach to meditation is entirely inadequate: subtler intentions infected with hindrances will always be “underlying” the act of concentration, no matter how “one-pointed” it is. One ceases to be “underlain” by developing _yoniso manasikāra_, on which see [MN 2](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn2), and [this essay](https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/The-Meaning-of-Yoniso-Manasikara-Bhikkhu-Anigha.pdf). That is my doctrine, and that is what I assert.”
When he had spoken, Daṇḍapāṇi shook his head, waggled his tongue, raised his eyebrows until his brow puckered in three furrows, and he departed leaning on his staff.
Then in the late afternoon, the Buddha came out of retreat and went to the Banyan Tree Monastery, sat down on the seat spread out, and told the bhikkhus what had happened.
When he had spoken, one of the bhikkhus said to him, “But Bhante, asserting what does the Buddha not contend with anyone in this world with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans? And how is that the Buddha, the brahmin who lives detached from sensuality, without doubting, stripped of worry, and without craving for any kind of being, is not underlain by perceptions?”
“Bhikkhus, the cause of perceptions and considerations born of proliferation besetting one— * This is the controversial term _papañcasaññāsaṅkhā_, discussed in [this short essay](https://www.hillsidehermitage.org/papanca-sanna-sankha/). “Proliferation” (_papañca_) here means something much more nuanced than simply an overuse of concepts and thinking. Allowing one's mind to overly dwell on the details of something would be a form of proliferation not because of the “amount” of thinking that is taking place, but if and when that thinking is accompanied by delight and craving. See the next comment. If there is nothing to be delighted in, welcomed, or rested upon there, * In other words, the problem is not that such things arise (thoughts and mental activities of an active and forceful nature), but that the mind is not dispassionate towards them. See AN 6.55, SN 35.228, and the talk [“Becoming Imperturbable”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-039SYi2a94). just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to passion, resistance, views, doubt, conceit, passion for being, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, contention, and disputes, of accusations, slander, and lies. This is where these bad, detrimental things cease without remainder.” * It is the categorical end to all these things because one's dispassion and withdrawal no longer depends on any circumstances, including the intensity of the phenomena that arise at the six sense fields. In contrast to this, the natural tendency for the ignorant mind is to strive for freedom through the suppression of the besetting perceptions, such that, to use the simile from AN 6.55, the mind does not tremble because there is no storm, not because it's immovable.
That is what the Buddha said. When he had spoken, the Excellent One got up from his seat and entered his dwelling.
Soon after the Buddha left, those bhikkhus thought, “The Buddha gave this brief explanation, then entered his dwelling without explaining the meaning in detail. Who can explain in detail the meaning of this brief explanation given by the Buddha?”
Then those bhikkhus thought, “This Venerable Mahākaccāna is praised by the Buddha and esteemed by his sensible fellow renunciates. He is capable of explaining in detail the meaning of this brief explanation given by the Buddha. Let’s go to him, and ask him about this matter.”
Then those bhikkhus went to Venerable Mahākaccāna, and exchanged pleasantries with him. When the amicable and cordial talk was over, they sat down to one side. They told him what had happened, and said: “May Venerable Mahākaccāna please explain this.”
“Friends, suppose there was a man in need of heartwood. And while wandering in search of heartwood he’d come across a large tree standing with heartwood. But he’d pass over the roots and trunk, imagining that the heartwood should be sought in the branches and leaves. Such is how it's turned out for the venerables. Though you were face to face with the Buddha, you overlooked him, imagining that you should ask me about this matter. For he, the Buddha, knows while knowing and sees while seeing. He is vision, he is knowledge, he is the Dhamma, he is the manifestation of divinity. He is the teacher, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the bestower of the deathless, the lord of the Dhamma, the Realized One. *_jānaṃ jānāti, passaṃ passati_ > “knows while knowing; sees while seeing”. This is essentially the principle of _yoniso manasikāra_, and it's how the Arahant is not “underlain by perceptions” as said above. The Buddha's knowledge-and-vision does not simply occur at the level of attention and perception (e.g., extraordinary meditative experiences or visions), but at the level of understanding the nature of any and all perception while it takes place, regardless of whether it’s of a mundane or extraordinary kind (SN 22.59: “*all* perception, whether past, present, or future …”). That was the time to approach the Buddha and ask about this matter. You should have remembered it in line with the Buddha’s answer.”
“Certainly the Buddha knows while knowing and sees while seeing. He is vision, he is knowledge, he is the Dhamma, he is the manifestation of divinity. He is the teacher, the proclaimer, the elucidator of meaning, the bestower of the deathless, the lord of the Dhamma, the Realized One. That was the time to approach the Buddha and ask about this matter. We should have remembered it in line with the Buddha’s answer. Still, the Venerable Mahākaccāna is praised by the Buddha and esteemed by his sensible fellow renunciates. He is capable of explaining in detail the meaning of this brief explanation given by the Buddha. May the Venerable Mahākaccāna explain this, without making it difficult.”
“Well then, friends, listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.”
“Yes, friend,” they replied. Venerable Mahākaccāna said this:
“Friends, the Buddha gave this brief explanation, then entered his dwelling without explaining the meaning in detail: ‘Bhikkhus, the cause for perceptions and considerations born of proliferation besetting one— If there is nothing to be delighted in, welcomed, or rested upon there, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to passion, resistance, views, doubt, conceit, passion for being, and ignorance. This is the end of taking up the rod and the sword, the end of quarrels, arguments, and disputes, of accusations, slander, and lies. This is where these bad, detrimental things cease without remainder.’ This is how I understand the detailed meaning of this explanation:
Eye-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms. The meeting of the three is pressure. With pressure as support, feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one proliferates. What one proliferates is the cause for perceptions and considerations born of proliferation besetting one in regard to sights cognizable by the eye pertaining to the past, present, and future.
Ear-consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds. …
Nose-consciousness arises dependent on the nose and smells. …
Tongue consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and tastes. …
Body-consciousness arises dependent on the body and touches. …
Mental faculty consciousness arises dependent on the mental faculty and phenomena. The meeting of the three is pressure. With pressure as support, feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one proliferates. What one proliferates is the cause for perceptions and considerations born of proliferation besetting one in regard to sights cognizable by the eye pertaining to the past, present, and future.
Friends, there being the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness, pressure is conceivable. * The point of Ven. Mahākaccāna's explanation here is that, instead of trying to prevent the besetting perceptions from manifesting, one attends to it [“through-the-origin”](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn%202), which means simultaneously keeping in mind the basis on which its entire manifestation depends, i.e. that the manifestation is inconceivable without that basis. This eventually results in the mind being unable to find anything to delight in within that experience, as the entire array of besetting perceptions is now seen as impermanent, conditioned by the eye, a lump of flesh that is fully liable to destruction. This is the right kind of equanimity, born of renunciation instead of circumstantial management of feelings (MN 137). This is how _paṭiccasamuppāda_ is concretely reflected on, how the [_satipaṭṭhānas_ ](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn10) are practiced, and how the two extremes of indulgence and denial (of the besetting perceptions) are both avoided ([SN 1.1](https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=sn1.1), SN 12.15): the Middle Way. Pressure being conceivable, feeling is conceivable. Feeling being conceivable, perception is conceivable. Perception being conceivable, thought is conceivable. Thought being conceivable, the besetting of perceptions and considerations born of proliferation is conceivable.
There being the ear … nose … tongue … body … Friends, there being the mental faculty, phenomena, and mental faculty consciousness, pressure is conceivable. … Pressure being conceivable, feeling is conceivable. Feeling being conceivable, perception is conceivable. Perception being conceivable, thought is conceivable. Thought being conceivable, the besetting of perceptions and considerations born of proliferation is conceivable.
Friends, there being no eye, no forms, and no eye-consciousness, pressure is inconceivable. Pressure being inconceivable, feeling is inconceivable. Feeling being inconceivable, perception is inconceivable. Perception being inconceivable, thought is inconceivable. Thought being inconceivable, the besetting of perceptions and considerations born of proliferation is inconceivable.
Friends, there being no ear … no nose … no tongue … no body … no mental faculty, no ideas, and no mental faculty consciousness, pressure is inconceivable. Pressure being inconceivable, feeling is inconceivable. Feeling being inconceivable, perception is inconceivable. Perception being inconceivable, thought is inconceivable. Thought being inconceivable, the besetting of perceptions and considerations born of proliferation is inconceivable.
This is how I understand the detailed meaning of that brief explanation given by the Buddha. If you wish, you may go to the Buddha and ask him about this. You should remember it in line with the Buddha’s answer.”
Then those bhikkhus, delighting in and appreciating what Venerable Mahākaccāna said, rose from their seats and went to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and told him what had happened, adding: “Venerable Mahākaccāna clearly explained the meaning to us in this manner, with these words and phrases.”
“Mahākaccāna is wise, bhikkhus, he is of great understanding. If you came to me and asked this question, I would answer it in exactly the same way as Mahākaccāna. That is what it means, and that’s how you should remember it.”
When he said this, Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha, “Bhante, suppose a man who was weak with hunger was to obtain a lump of honey. Wherever they taste it, they would enjoy a sweet, refined flavor.
In the same way, whenever a sagacious and competent bhikkhu might examine with understanding the meaning of this exposition of the teaching, he would only gain gladness and confidence. *i.e., a _bhikkhu_ with the Right View who is able to see _paṭiccasamuppāda_. The exposition would remind him that the work of overcoming the defilements is entirely doable, because it does not depend on something outside his control—whether the besetting perceptions arise or not. They inevitably will (SN 35.28, SN 35.240, SN 4.19). It depends solely on whether he sustains the right perspective in face of them, and that is fully in his control. Bhante, what is the name of this exposition of the teaching?”
“Well then, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Lump of Honey Discourse’.”
That is what the Buddha said. Pleased, Venerable Ānanda delighted in what the Buddha said.
Origin URL: https://suttas.hillsidehermitage.org/?q=mn18