Traditional Theravada: the world is NOT factually burning embers

Discussion
1

Hello!

Recently, this video was brought up in a discussion. A question is asked about the grim teaching of Buddhism and the Venerable in the video answers by stating:

“If you practice the Dhamma correctly, it shows you that what you think is happiness — centrality, the world — is factually burning embers that are harming you, damaging you, right here, right now, while you’re engaged with them.”

According to Theravada tradition, this was a contested point during the third council and was rejected. The now defunct school which defended this view was known as the Gokulika.

I’ve seen this sentiment reflected in various posts on this forum over the last few years. That the world and all conditioned things are to be understood as factual burning embers. This seems to me a revival of the Gokulika school or evidence that the school’s sentiment has lived on?

According to tradition, this is how the debate played out between the Theravada (which rejected this sentiment) and the Gokulika (which asserted it):

Controverted Point: That all conditioned things are absolutely cinderheaps.

…

Gokulika: But was it not said by the Exalted One:

“The impermanent involves Ill; all conditioned things are impermanent”?

Theravādin: But take giving: does that bring forth fruit that is undesired, unpleasant, disagreeable, adulterated? Does it bear, and result in, sorrow? Or take virtue, the keeping of feastdays, religious training, and religious life: do they bring forth such fruit, etc.? Do they not rather have the opposite result? How then can you affirm your general proposition?

Kv 2.8

The grim view that the modern Venerable puts forth in his answer seems to me more akin to the traditional Gokulika school than the traditional Theravada.

:pray:

3 Likes
2

There is dukkha as the first truth of the noble ones, and there is dukkha vedana - an unpleasant feeling. Similarly, there is sukha as the opposite of dukkha - the ultimate happiness of liberation, and there is sukha vedana - a pleasant feeling.

For an ordinary person without the right view, with a wrong view, dukkha vedana is the dukkha and sukha vedana is the sukha.

So, yes, the Buddha never denied that there is no sukha vedana in the world and there is only dukkha vedana, but he never equated dukkha vedana with the dukkha and sukha vedana with the sukha of liberation.

So what is the understanding of dukkha and sukha of each of the opponents in the ‘refutation’? Are their understandings of these terms the same? Are both of them speaking from the position of the noble ones and not from the position of an ordinary person with a wrong view?

From MN75:

Suppose there was a person affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs. Being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, they’d cauterize their body over a pit of glowing coals. Their friends and colleagues, relatives and kin would get a surgeon to treat them. The surgeon would make medicine for them, and by using that they’d be cured of leprosy. They’d be healthy, happy, autonomous, master of themselves, able to go where they wanted. Then they’d see another person affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, cauterizing their body over a pit of glowing coals.

What do you think, Māgaṇḍiya? Would that person envy that other person affected by leprosy for their pit of glowing coals or for taking medicine?”

“No, worthy Gotama. Why is that? Because you need to take medicine only when there’s a disease. When there’s no disease, there’s no need for medicine.”

“In the same way, Māgaṇḍiya, when I was still a layperson I used to entertain myself with sights … sounds … smells … tastes … touches known by the body, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Some time later—having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape of sensual pleasures, and having given up craving and dispelled passion for sensual pleasures—I live rid of thirst, my mind peaceful inside. I see other sentient beings who are not free from sensual pleasures being consumed by craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual pleasures, indulging in sensual pleasures. I don’t envy them, nor do I hope to enjoy that. Why is that? Because there is a satisfaction that is apart from sensual pleasures and unskillful qualities, which even equals heavenly pleasure. Enjoying that satisfaction, I don’t envy what is inferior, nor do I hope to enjoy it.

Suppose there was a person affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs. Being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, they’d cauterize their body over a pit of glowing coals. Their friends and colleagues, relatives and kin would get a surgeon to treat them. The surgeon would make medicine for them, and by using that they’d be cured of leprosy. They’d be healthy, happy, autonomous, master of themselves, able to go where they wanted. Two strong men would grab them by the arms and drag them towards the pit of glowing coals.

What do you think, Māgaṇḍiya? Wouldn’t that person writhe and struggle to and fro?”

“Yes, worthy Gotama. Why is that? Because that fire is really painful to touch, fiercely burning and scorching.”

“What do you think, Māgaṇḍiya? Is it only now that the fire is really painful to touch, fiercely burning and scorching, or was it painful previously as well?”

“That fire is painful now and it was also painful previously. That person was affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs. Being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, their sense faculties were impaired. So even though the fire was actually painful to touch, they had a distorted perception that it was pleasant.”

“In the same way, sensual pleasures of the past, future, and present are painful to touch, fiercely burning and scorching. These sentient beings who are not free from sensual pleasures—being consumed by craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual pleasures—have impaired sense faculties. So even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to touch, they have a distorted perception that they are pleasant.

Suppose there was a person affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs. Being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, they’re cauterizing their body over a pit of glowing coals. The more they scratch their wounds and cauterize their body, the more their wounds become foul, stinking, and infected. But still, they derive a degree of pleasure and gratification from the itchiness of their wounds. In the same way, I see other sentient beings who are not free from sensual pleasures being consumed by craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual pleasures, indulging in sensual pleasures. The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their craving for sensual pleasures grows, and the more they burn with passion for sensual pleasures. But still, they derive a degree of pleasure and gratification from the five kinds of sensual stimulation.

What do you think, Māgaṇḍiya? Have you seen or heard of a king or a royal minister of the past, future, or present, amusing themselves supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, who—without giving up craving for sensual pleasures and dispelling passion for sensual pleasures—lives rid of thirst, their mind peaceful inside?”

“No, worthy Gotama.”

“Good, Māgaṇḍiya. Neither have I. On the contrary, all the ascetics or brahmins of the past, future, or present who live rid of thirst, their minds peaceful inside, do so after truly understanding the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape of sensual pleasures, and after giving up craving and dispelling passion for sensual pleasures.”

5 Likes
3

Now quote us a sutra that doesn’t have that message. I would really like to see people explore the full measure of Buddhist thought instead of simply quoting a text that supports an argument.

3 Likes
4

Hi Sasha_A!

Yes, if you look at Kv 2.8 the Gokulika interlocutor also quoted a sutta in a similar way trying to defend the proposition of the world as factually burning embers. The back and forth between the two consisted of quoting scripture at each other as cdpatton noted :slight_smile:

Here is another sutta which you could use to defend the Gokulika position if you wish:

“Mendicants, form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are burning chaff.

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form …

SN 22.136

I don’t take the position of Gokulika, but I’ll acknowledge that such sutta exist and prima facie seem to confirm the proposition. And to follow cdpatton’s excellent advice I’ll also quote a sutta that doesn’t have that message to help further explore the full measure of Buddhist thought:

Form is like a lump of foam;
feeling is like a bubble;
perception seems like a mirage;
choices like a banana tree;
and consciousness like a magic trick:
so taught the kinsman of the Sun.

SN 22.95

Here we have two different sutta in the same nikaya both talking about the five aggregates, but doing so in very different ways. In one we have form described as burning chaff. In the other we have form described as a lump of foam.

Trying to make sense of these two, the best my limited mind can do, is think that neither was intended to be taken factually for what form is. Rather, I think the Teacher was intending both to cool the passions of desire and craving towards form given the proclivities of the person(s) hearing these messages.

In short, I’d say that despite these two dueling suttas, it would be a mistake to take them factually to conclude the world is factually burning embers OR is factually a lumpy foamy mess. :rofl: :pray:

1 Like
5

I’m not really sure what you mean by literally - that they are factually burning embers and not another metaphor for “All is burning”?

As to the question: Depends on how you define “grim” and what the opposite would be? Life-embracing? Merry? If I was to situate Theravada within these two extremes - I’d say it’s much more on the ‘grim’-side with ‘grim’ closer to the meaning of ‘serious’ or ‘dry’ or ‘sober’ . But I don’t equate ‘grim’ with ‘inconsolable’ or even nihilism. Happiness/contentment/upekkha can be achieved and should be cultivated in this very life but not via chasing sensual pleasures which are ultimately dukkha.

6

Are you saying that you understood the quote about burning embers literally? Or are you attributing such an understanding to me? I am sorry, but why is such a view even mentioned here?

Frankly, the nature and content of the alleged dispute in this source is quite different from any actual record of a live dispute. But what it does resemble is a modern methodology for paid internet trolls: here is such and such an agenda to promote, here are such and such arguments that may arise, here is how to react to such arguments. Note, not to answer, but to react, because the level of sophistry and bad faith in the responses of the ‘rebuttalist’ from the tradition is usually simply overwhelming.

7

Here I’m using the word ‘literally’ as synonymous with ‘factually’ and ‘absolutely’ as used by the modern Venerable linked above and the proponent of the proposition in the Kv 2.8 that, “all conditioned things are absolutely cinderheaps.”

See above. I’m using literally as synonymous with factually and absolutely. I’ve gone ahead and changed it to factually in the comment above to dispel any misunderstanding.

:pray:

8

We are in agreement that chasing after the world’s sensual pleasures is a condition for the arising of dukkha, but I’m not sure we agree on what sensual pleasures are not:

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
but the attentive remove desire for them.

AN 6.63

thistle, do you agree that the world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures or how is the above understood by you? What was the point the Teacher was trying to make when he said the world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures?

:pray:

1 Like
9

I watched the video again and I think it is very clear that when he said

he doesn’t mean it in a literal literal way that things are burning embers. What he means is that the worldly stuff acts as burning embers and that this is in fact harming. He even says that he’s using a simile when talking about being intoxicated as the default mode in human beings.

Secondly, pretty things can be pretty things. Wanting pretty things, thinking about pretty things, searching for pretty things is something different. If you see a pretty flower because it happens to be on your way - you can acknowledge that it is beautiful. If you choose to go down the same street everytime now because you want to see the flower - that is something different. That’s craving. And the flower will fade away so it will not provide the sensual eye-pleasure forever. That’s causing dukkha. The flower is not so much the problem - our attitude towards it is.

10

Here is an explanation from the book Meanings by the Venerable himself:

In order to know suffering it is not enough just to suffer. To know suffering, one has to recognize, within the present experience, what is and what is not necessary. The point is that, in the experience of pain, certain aspects are inevitable, while others, are not. In different words — the ‘painfulness’ of pain is suffering and not the pain itself.

Let me get back to the opening statement that one should not crave the cessation of suffering; why is that essential? The immediate reason of our suffering, as the Buddha tells us, is our craving. It is because of craving that our experience of pain is painful. This applies to the other two kinds of feeling too: pleasant and neutral. Thus, we can say, that it is because of craving that feelings are suffering. In the first type, unpleasant feeling, craving for the cessation of that feeling causes one to suffer: the painful feeling is present there, directly opposed to one’s desire for it to not-be, to disappear. In this way a discrepancy is created, a discrepancy which is nothing but suffering. In the second type, pleasant feeling, craving for more of that feeling is manifested, thus the actual pleasant feeling appears as unpleasant, when attended from the direction of that increased pleasure which is craved for. The present feeling of pleasure becomes inadequate, a lack which needs to be satisfied. Again, the discrepancy arises, which one tries to overcome by a further pursuit of various things in the world which will intensify his pleasure further. One hopes that such attempt will ‘fill the gap’ within, but needless to say, that is impossible since the discrepancy is actually being constantly generated by the presence of craving, and not by the various objects in the world.
…
So, to summarize, one’s experience of pain is not the reason for one’s suffering. It is rather the presence of craving, in one’s experience, that suffering is there. As long as this remains the case, one will be a ‘victim’ of one’s own feelings, be they pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

1 Like
11

Yes, I agree- unless one is standing very close to an active volcano !

1 Like
12

I’ve posted my reply to this here, as to not derail this thread:

1 Like
13

I think it’s quite common that modern Theravadins hold views that are more akin to those of other ancient schools.

But in this case, my understanding of the Gokulika dispute was not so much on the fact that things are burning like embers, but denying that there is even a modicum of relief and pleasure in the world.

The word used in the Kathavatthu is anodhi, “unremitting".

This does, indeed, seem to me to be an extreme position. The Theravada view is that both pleasure and pain are equally real, and that even pleasure is characterized as dukkha in the sense that it is impermanent, etc. The Buddha never begrudged people enjoying things, in fact he encouraged lay people to enjoy sensual pleasures, it’s normal. It’s just not permanent and satisfying, but it’s still pleasure.

But anyway, I agree with your larger point, the Venerable is adopting a position that is appealing due to its black and white absolutism, which draws people who are uncomfortable with nuance and the complexities of the real world. As a Dhamma teacher, I can tell you that when you put stuff out like that, you won’t end up with a lot of arahants, but you will end up with a lot of misogynists who think they are arahants.

6 Likes
14

The world is as dangerous as it will ever be. The first Noble Truth of suffering does not only entail the fact that suffering is a Truth for all sentient beings, but also that suffering is harmful, distasteful, unwanted, and that there needs to be a solution to the problem of suffering. An Enlightened being may feel pain, and arguably, even suffer, albeit as a Skillful Means, out of their mercy towards those who cannot bear the miseries of life. It is their choice, one that cannot be taken from them, yet at every juncture they have the chance to enter full Nibbana, either with remainder or without, but still this world creates suffering for others who are caught in the cravings that lack an Enlightened freedom from such, that Enlightenment all the while available to us in Buddhist Practice.

The fires that burn in the aggregates can be purified into cessation, that is the purpose of Awakening. In Theravada Buddhism we try to reach Nibbana. To become an Arhat means to walk the Path of the Middle-Way, the Noble Eightfold Path bravely, taking suffering as something that we don’t have to succumb to. I believe that overcoming fear is one of the greatest steps in overcoming suffering, because the fear of suffering is a suffering initself, and once we overcome that type of suffering, we can bridge the gap between running away from life and also helping others be ferried to the Other Shore where freedom rests.

The world is metaphorically burning embers for the illusioned being. But for those Buddhas and Arhats who have crossed over to the Other Shore, this world is different. There’s that [Christian] New Testament Verse: “To the Pure, all things are Pure…” that comes to mind. It’s a different Tradition than that of Buddhism, but there is a hint of the same way of thinking. An attempt at the Noble Eightfold Path will always bring one towards suffering less, and if one isn’t suffering at all, and won’t, is there anywhere they will go where there will be that kind of fire described above? There is something greater in Buddhist Practice and it’s fruit. Getting there is very important. Nibbana, Awakening, and Supreme Perfect Enlightenment. These are the things that matter in life the most, to those even whom such factors may be alien, because they are certainly in need of them the most. Namaste.

15

The Buddha never begrudged people enjoying things, in fact he encouraged lay people to enjoy sensual pleasures

Bhante, I do not see how you can adopt this position as someone who has gone through the whole Pali canon probably more than once and even translated it. This view sounds very similar to the one the Buddha is shown vehemently refuting in MN 22 (where the comparison of sense pleasures with a charcoal pit occurs explicitly). There’s MN 75, which is also quite blunt. We have a very explicit recommendation regarding laypeople in Snp 2.14, again with the simile of the charcoal pit, and Snp 4.1 as well.

The fact that the Buddha knew it was unlikely that all lay people would follow his message and would give teachings like the DN 31 to them does not mean he “encouraged” them to enjoy sensual pleasures. It was more like “since you insist in jumping into this charcoal pit, do so moderately.”

4 Likes
16

Hello Pather. What I understood from Venerable is that he was agreeing with the last part of the Kv 2.8 expressing the traditional Theravada:

But take giving: does that bring forth fruit that is undesired, unpleasant, disagreeable, adulterated? Does it bear, and result in, sorrow? Or take virtue, the keeping of feastdays, religious training, and religious life: do they bring forth such fruit, etc.?

The fruit of giving is not sour. Giving in a selfless way brings forth good fruit; not spoiled. Giving in a selfless way brings with it a warmness of the heart that is enjoyable and pleasant; not unenjoyable and unpleasant.

It could be that there is misunderstanding of sensual pleasure as a designation. Greedy intention does not bring forth good fruit. It brings forth spoiled fruit. I think we can all agree on that, right?

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
AN 6.63

The fruit of giving without greedy intention is not sour. Hopefully that is agreed upon as well, yes?

:pray:

17

I’m not sure how giving fits into the discussion, and it was never denounced in the original video nor others I know of from the same Venerable. Even when done with greedy intentions, giving is more on the side of renunciation than sensual pleasure. It does not provide feverish, addictive gratification like the things below.

Sensual pleasures are pleasant sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches provocative of lust: sex, eating for pleasure, dancing, music—things which the most serious practitioners (monastics) are expected not to engage in because they are an obstacle.

18

This is specifically refuted by this sutta:

There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation. Sights known by the eye, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Sounds known by the ear … Smells known by the nose … Tastes known by the tongue … Touches known by the body, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. However, these are not sensual pleasures. In the training of the Noble One they’re called ‘kinds of sensual stimulation’.

AN 6.63

:pray:

2 Likes
19

Is there a context I’m missing for why you mentioned mysogynism now, bhante?

4 Likes
20

I think we can separate (potential) objects of stimulation from sensual pleasures and I did so by providing the “flower”-example. That the flower is pretty (pretty is the mind’s fabrication - a judgement) must not be a problem then -the longing for seeing it is (by this logic).

I always had the impression that reducing the exposure to ‘potential-sensual-stimulation-objects’ is also part of the training because we as ordinary human beings tend to react towards these objects with craving. To be able not to crave stuff is difficult. So moderation is one building block but because we tend to want more - food, music, sex, whatever - moderation might be hard. So to not expose yourself too much to potential sensual-stimulation-objects’ seems like a good idea imo.

1 Like