-------- Message transféré --------
Dera Patrick,
the fact that the honey already was in a pot, says not much about
whether it was free of bees or not. In ancient India honey was not
attained by harvesting it from cultivated bees, but by hunting it
from wild bees, which often entailed violently decimating or even
destroying the bee swarm. On honey hunting see, e.g.,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_hunting. It is not without reason that
a honey hunter was called madhughātaka or madhuhan in Sanskrit and
Pali. The honey collected in this way contained dead bees, bee
larvae, and other impurities. Moreover, honey was often selled on
the market in form of complete combs. So, raw honey or honey combs
contained dead bees (and other impurities), while purified honey
did not. Therefore amakṣika amounts to mean "pure, of a high
quality". Cf., e.g., Jataka V 367,18: [rasalolo andho] samakkhikam
pi amakkhikam pi āmisaṃ ādiyati; Samantapāsādikā I 182,18:
anīḷakan ti nimmakkhikaṃ nimmakkhikaṇḍakaṃ parisuddhaṃ. etaṃ kira
madhuṃ sabbamadhūhi aggañ ca seṭṭhañ ca surasañ ca ojavantañ ca.
As for the Agañña-sutta, it was translated and studied by Steven
Collins in Journal oflndian Philosophy 21, 1993, pp. 301-393
(Errata in Journal of Indian Philosophy 22, 1994, p. 197).
Best wishes
Martin
KORN Agnes via INDOLOGY
<indology@list.indology.info>
schrieb am Freitag, 18. September 2026 um 11:04:
Dear all,
I've heard of the project in Thailand, to the extent, that FAN
Jingjing (department of South Asian Studies of Peking
University), who will come to Paris hopefully at the end of this
month or so, is one of the people working on it. So it does seem
seem serious.
Best,
Agnes
De: "Charles DiSimone via INDOLOGY"
<indology@list.indology.info>
À: "Dan Lusthaus" <yogacara@gmail.com>
Cc: "Indology" <indology@list.indology.info>
Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Septembre 2026 10:22:49
Objet: Re: [INDOLOGY] Question on amākṣika madhu in MBh 5.62.23
Dear Dan,
Not to hijack the thread but your comment about the Rhys-Davids
translations being a century old bring to mind a news blurb I
recently read about a new Tripiṭaka translation coming out of
Thailand:
https://www.khaosodenglish.com/featured/2026/09/12/thailand-moves-ahead-with-45-volume-english-tipitaka-project/
(I know nothing about this venture beyond the above article)
Friendly greetings,
Charles
Prof. Dr. Charles DiSimone
Associate Professor of Buddhist Studies & Indology
Department of Languages and Cultures
Ghent University
On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 5:34 AM Dan Lusthaus via INDOLOGY
<indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
> > You may want to look at the Agañña sutta, #27 in the
Dīgha Nikāya. That sutta contains a cosmogonic myth about how
rarified beings early in the world cycle became increasingly
cruder, starting with the flowing essence of earth gelling into
something like the skin that forms on milk when on is cooking
it. It is the color of ghee or butter and sweet like the honey
that bees make. But it is not made by bees. When they eat and
enjoy it, their bodies and habit become more course and their
life spans shorten. The vocabulary is not the same as the
Mahābhāratā passage, but the idea is.
> The Pāli text can be read online
here: https://suttacentral.net/dn27/pli/ms
> > The T.W. Rhys-Davids translation (roughly a century
old now) is online
here https://suttacentral.net/dn27/en/tw-caf_rhysdavids
> > Good luck,
> Dan
> > > On Sep 16, 2026, at 11:27 AM, Martin Straube via
INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
> > > Dear Patrick,
> > > > One meight assume that it means "free from
bees", "not contaminated with (dead) bees"; cf. Skt. nirmakṣika
(https://nws.uzi.uni-halle.de). However, In this case one would
rather expect amakṣika. Did you check the critical edition of
the Mbh?
> > > > Best wishes
> > Martin Straube
> > > > > > patrick mccartney via INDOLOGY
<indology@list.indology.info> schrieb am Mittwoch, 16.
September 2026 um 08:44:
> > > > > Dear Friends,
> > > > > > I'm curious about amākṣika in the
following passage of the Mahābhārata:
> > > > > > > vayaṃ kirātaiḥ sahitā
gacchāmo girim uttaram
> > > > brāhmaṇair devakalpaiś ca
vidyājambhakavātikaiḥ
> > > > > > > > kuñjabhūtaṃ giriṃ sarvam
abhito gandhamādanam
> > > > dīpyamānauṣadhigaṇaṃ siddhagandharvasevitam
> > > > > > > > tatra paśyāmahe sarve
madhu pītam amākṣikam
> > > > maruprapāte viṣame niviṣṭaṃ kumbhasaṃmitam
> > > > > > > > āśīviṣair rakṣyamāṇaṃ
kuberadayitaṃ bhṛśam
> > > > yat prāśya puruṣo martyo 'maratvaṃ
nigacchati
> > > > > > > > acakṣur labhate cakṣur
vṛddho bhavati vai yuvā
> > > > iti te kathayanti sma brāhmaṇā
jambhasādhakāḥ.
> > > > > > The usual interpretation seems to
be a-mākṣika “not bee-derived,” but I am wondering whether there
is more to the terminology. Madhu has a much wider semantic
range than simply “honey,” including Soma, sweet/intoxicating
liquids, nectar, etc.; moreover, the passage places the madhu
immediately after a description of medicinal plants and has it
guarded by venomous snakes before attributing to it rejuvenating
and immortalizing powers.
> > > > > > There are also parallel passages:
> > > > > > > amākṣikaṃ mahāvīryaṃ puṭake
puṭake madhu
> > > > Kūrmapurāṇa 1.27.33; Liṅgapurāṇa 1.39.28
> > > > > > and:
> > > > > > > vṛkṣāṃs tān paryagṛhṇanta
madhu cāmākṣikaṃ balāt
> > > > Kūrmapurāṇa 1.27.35
> > > > > > Could amākṣika have a
technical/material sense beyond “non-bee honey”? I am
particularly interested in whether there are relevant
commentarial, lexical, medical, or śleṣa/saṃdhyābhāṣā
interpretations.
> > > > > > All the best,
> > > Patrick McCartney, PhD
> > > Hiroshima, Japan
