What happens when you take a pot out of the kiln?

Discussion
1

In SN 12.51 we have a brief simile. But the exact import is unclear to me, and I wondered if anyone could help clear it up.

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, puriso kumbhakārapākā uṇhaṃ kumbhaṃ uddharitvā same bhūmibhāge paṭisisseyya. Tatra yāyaṃ usmā sā tattheva vūpasameyya, kapallāni avasisseyyuṃ.
Bodhi: Suppose a man would remove a hot clay pot from a potter’s kiln and set it on smooth ground: its heat would be dissipated right there and potsherds would be left.

It’s an illustration of an arahant, who reflects that when they die, only the bodily remains (sarīrāni) are left, due to having no attachments. Something like this:

AS BB notes, the plural kapallāni that he translates as “potsherds” is clearly meant to match up with the plural for “bodily remains”. But I don’t understand how we get from a new clay pot set on the ground to some potsherds. I mean, pots last for thousands of years, it seems like an odd simile for impermanence. And our texts seems to be emphasizing that the pot is carefully placed on even ground.

Kapalla, also sometimes spelled in Pali the same as the Sanskrit kapāla, means “pot”, “cup”, and frequently “skull”. (Fun fact: it’s etymologically related to English “head”.) It has a religious significance. The skulls can be used as beggars bowls (but not by Buddhists!), or as grotesque adornments, while “cups” are a common part of the ritual equipment.

The commentary explains that the plural form refers to potsherds bound together by the rim. But I find this unpersuasive: clay pots don’t work like that.

There is considerable confusion regarding the verb describing putting down the pot. Our mainline text reads paṭisisseyya, while the Mahasangiti lists the following variants: paṭiviseyya (bj) | patiṭṭhapeyya (s1-3, km, pts1-2) | paṭiseveyya (ṭīkā). The PTS edition adopts patiṭṭhapeyya as the main reading, attributed to the Sri Lankan text, with paṭiviṁseyya attributed to the Thai, and paṭisasseyya attributed to Burmese. The commentary reads Paṭisisseyyāti ṭhapeyya, which i guess translates as “Leftover means remains”. This appears to be the only occurrence of this term.

The variant paṭiviṁseyya would appear to be related to paṭiviṃsa in the sense of divided, perhaps “broken up”, but it doesn’t appear to be a legitimate verb form.

Fortunately we have two parallels to add to the confusion. Here’s the Sanskrit, from SF 159:

tad yathā balavān puruṣaḥ soṣmāt kumbhakārapākāt soṣmaṃ kumbhaṃ gṛhītvā same pṛthivīpradeśe upanikṣipeta tasya ya uṣmā so ’ntarhīyeta śītībhaveyuḥ kapālāni
Sujato: Suppose a strong person were to take a hot clay pot from a hot kiln and put it down on level ground. Its heat would disappear, and the shards would become cool.

The plural kapālāni is still here, which is strong evidence that it’s correct, but it’s still unclear how the pot gets broken up. The verb here is upanikṣipeta, which doesn’t correspond with any of the Pali variants. Now, normally I would take this to simply mean “place down”, or “put down nearby”. However, the Sanskrit dictionary includes “thrown down” as a possible meaning. Perhaps that could be meant here: the pot is smashed on the ground. Having said which, the literary evidence for this meaning is unclear, and I don’t regard it as a strong case.

Here’s the Chinese, from SA 292. Remember, this is likely to be from a text similar to that of the Sanskrit. Hopefully @llt will correct my Chinese!

譬如力士取新熟瓦器，乘熱置地，須臾散壞，熱勢悉滅
Sujato: Suppose a strong person were to take a freshly baked clay pot and convey it while hot to the ground. The heat would be quickly scattered and the energy would be all gone.

Here, I think 滅 stands for śītībhaveyuḥ, and 勢 (“energy”) for kapālāni, by mistake I guess.

My best guess for the interpretation would be this. Rather than thinking of the “shards” as the broken pieces of the pot, they are the shards left behind in the fire. This is common. Pots break, and also pots may be stacked together with broken shards in the kiln.

The “level ground” out of the fire is clearly a simile for nibbana. The pot is removed from the fire, and only shards remain in the fire.

So we might translate:

Sujato: Suppose a person was to remove a hot clay pot from a potter’s kiln and place it on level ground. Its heat would be dissipated right there, while the shards would be left behind (in the kiln).

2

@ sujato
I also find this a rather puzzling simile. Generally I love the similes in the suttas, one reason being that they are so simple, direct & clear. I don’t have sufficient expertise in Pali (let alone any Sanskrit or Chinese) to analyze the terms as you did. But from a simple practical perspective, this simile just doesn’t seem to fit clearly. I keep trying to reconcile it with my experience (albeit decades ago) of firing pots.

Too bad there wasn’t better evidence for the possible Sanskrit meaning “thrown down” as at least the pot image in the simile would make some sense.

Re: your last suggestion, in terms of parinibbāna (‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left., I still don’t see what the finished, cooled intact pot refers to (placed on the ground, as simile for Nibbāna). An image like that would make me think more of some cooled, perfect, inherent ‘soul’ left behind sitting in Nibbāna while the shards of the body remain in the hot kiln :confused: Needless to say….

Along these lines I could only see this interpretation working if it refers to Nibbāna while the arahant is still alive (no longer burning, but the pot still remains until the final break-up). But I’m not sure this can be supported in terms of the Pali or the way the simile is introduced, ie. right before ‘With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left.’

I get that the simile is saying something about the pot remaining in the fire (burning) or being taking out (cooled) but still….

In terms of firing pots, one (of several) reason they can crack is if they are cooled too rapidly after firing (the heat is dissipated too quickly). But most cracks actually happen during the drying process even if they don’t show up until later. Also, I agree that the commentarial explanation of pot shards being held together by the rim makes little sense. However, in terms of making/firing pots, it’s true that the rim is important to the structure in that if too much stress is placed on the rim of an unfired pot, such as placing it upside down on a hard surface (either while the clay is drying and/or when it’s being fired), it’s more likely to crack, even if it doesn’t show up right away. Any practical clues to the simile in these? But still, why not a clear simile of the pot being reduced to shards on the ground??

1 Like
3

SN 12.51 is on the subject of causation…The pot in the kiln and outside the kiln means one has escaped samsara…ie, one has removed oneself from the cycle of cause and effect.

Inside the kiln…pot being constructed/formed/made as it is conditioned. In human terms, it is conditioned by ignorance and within cycle of existence where cause and effects takes place.

Outside the kiln…pot is removed, not conditioned to exist towards other potential forms and not subject to cause and effect as it is out of it. In human terms, one has escaped samsara…escaped the cycle of rebirth/existence which is conditioned by cause and effect.

We perceive it as a new pot but it is not!..we grasp the pot wrongly.
This is why that there is an escape from “inside the kiln” to “outside the kiln” because when one is “inside the kiln”…one is under ignorance and conditioned by it. Another thing is the so called new clay pot exist from that condition before existence which means it was within causation and it is now free from it.

its heat would be dissipated right there and potsherds would be left

It is natural for the heat to dissipate after removal from kiln…the heat is no longer there as it is removed from the kiln, ie. detached from cause and effect.

Potsherds would mean “Nibbana with residue”…residue here would be the previous karma until it runs out…the body.

In the last paragraphs, it notes:

“What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation?”

“No, venerable sir.”

This means one is free from cause and effect…causation!..the hidden dimension.

4

Thank you, I’m not the only one! Great to have an actual potter in the conversation.

Well yes, that occurred to me, too. A bit embarrassing, really.

5

The problem is not the newness of the pot, but why a pot ends up as fragments. We shouldn’t have to argue from the Dhamma application back to the simile. Understanding goes from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract. The purpose of the simile is provide a simple example to help understand the Dhamma application. And I still don’t understand what is happening with the pot!

There’s nothing hidden about it. It’s just that an arahant doesn’t make karma leading to rebirth.

2 Likes
6

[quote=“sujato, post:5, topic:2821”]
The problem is not the newness of the pot, but why a pot ends up as fragments.[/quote]
What doesn’t?..same destination for all forms.

[quote=“sujato, post:5, topic:2821”]
And I still don’t understand what is happening with the pot![/quote]
Pot is the “human being” under the sutta.

[quote=“sujato, post:5, topic:2821”]
There’s nothing hidden about it. It’s just that an arahant doesn’t make karma leading to rebirth.[/quote]
Hidden here means it is to be experienced…without it, one cannot escape…under Ud 8.1:

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water,…

7

@Emptiness

I get the idea of ‘in the kiln’ (in saṃāra) and ‘out of the kiln’ (no more conditioning/future birth) but this still doesn’t explain the actual image. I would think ‘pot shards’ would refer to 'nibbāna without residue and the intact pot, but out of the fire, would refer to ‘nibbāna with residue’ but this does not fit the simile.

We perceive it as a new pot but it is not!..we grasp the pot wrongly.

Can’t say I see your reasoning here in terms of how this fits with the simile.

8

Okay, this is my initial stab at it…

譬如力士取新熟瓦器
To illustrate, a strong man takes a newly fired pot
乘熱置地
while hot places it on the ground
須臾散壞
it immediately breaks apart
熱勢悉滅
the strength of the heat completely extinguished.

The state of the pottery is 熟 which means cooked, matured, ripened, etc., so we would think the pottery has been properly fired in the kiln and is actually ready to come out.

But it seems like it’s talking about the pot shattering and falling apart. In the part 乘熱置地, the pottery is still the subject, because it is being placed on the ground. If that is the case, then 須臾散壞 would be still be referring to the pottery. Also, the character 壞 is usually used when something is spoiled, ruined, etc.

The heat is being extinguished, though, not the pot. The character for extinguished 滅 is also the one typically used for nirodha.

Later in the text it shows that it is about some form of liberation at the time of death, at the “break up of the body” 身壞 (this literally means when the body is “ruined”). This is part of a common stock phrase that means when the body is broken up at the end of one’s life 身壞命終.

It seems to be something about all those sensations (or more likely awareness of sensations) being completely extinguished “without remainder” (一切受所覺悉滅無餘).

So the body is ruined 壞 and the pot is ruined 壞. The heat is extinguished 滅, and (awareness of) sensation is extinguished 滅.

That’s my read on it at least. I don’t know why the pot breaks, though, unless the temperature change caused some sudden reaction. Or maybe strong men just can’t make good pottery. Interesting passage. It reminds me of the illustration of the red hot iron ball that has its heat extinguished in cold water.

3 Likes
9

Thanks so much. It’s curiously opaque, I feel. Perhaps there was a very early corruption that underlies all the versions.

:smile: Indeed, the videos on pottery in India tend to show that it’s women doing much of the hard work. I’m sure the men do their part, of course. After all, someone’s got to eat the food that’s cooked in the pots!

1 Like
10

Here’s an amateur potter adding in his tuppence.

I think for the simile to work, it is being assumed that the kiln has been fired up to the point of vitrification of the pots. This would be unlike that modern Raku firing technique, where hot tea bowls can be taken out of a relatively cool kiln to subject it to a special glazing technique (such as in the first video which I just noticed :smile_cat:).

On of the things we amateur potters have to develop is the infinite patience to resist opening the kiln up prematurely. In the dragon kilns I’ve fired (ie using wood and natural convection), the cooling period after the firing varies from 3 days to 5 days.

Even if the Indians of that era were only firing earthenware and not stoneware, the temperature reached in the kiln would be at least 1000 degree C. For a pot to be removed from a 1000 degree C environment into ambient air temperature, the mechanical stresses from the thermal shock would have destroyed the pot.

Just going potty…

3 Likes
11

@sujato @Sylvester

I’m sure the men do their part, of course. After all, someone’s got to eat the food that’s cooked in the pots!

:laughing:

So, guess it must have been common knowledge at the time that strong men can’t be trusted to handle pots–-they’re too rough on top of being impatient :unamused:

Seriously though, does anyone know whether historically it was more common for women to actually tend the kilns?

12

I think there’s no reason to believe that strong men cannot also be nimble.

The potters I know who engage in wood-firing have to be both strong and nimble. The logs that need to be inserted into the kilns periodically are very heavy. Plus, they need to be inserted deftly, to avoid toppling the shelves on either side of the fire box.

But I think the women would have a clear advantage - stamina! Each firing I’ve attended lasts 36 hours. I only lasted 4…:grin:

1 Like
13

Interesting to know, maybe that’s it. The Chinese text seems to emphasize that it would “immediately” break up, which I took as representing the Pali tattheva, which you could possibly translate as “right away”.

14

[quote=“sujato, post:5, topic:2821”]
The problem is not the newness of the pot, but why a pot ends up as fragments.[/quote]
Just to add further/clarify…as the pot proceeds from conditioned to the unconditioned (samsara to nibbana), the pot itself must break up as fragments because “pot” had always been known under delusion/ignorance. When ignorance is erased, pot has gone “beyond” due to wisdom.

This is the same as one who goes beyond the false “I-am” delusion…by seeing impermanence. So the fragments would mean breaking the khandhas/aggregates (5 clinging aggregates).

[quote=“Linda, post:7, topic:2821”]
…but this still doesn’t explain the actual image. I would think ‘pot shards’ would refer to 'nibbāna without residue and the intact pot…[/quote]
See above.

15

I think there’s no reason to believe that strong men cannot also be nimble.

I hope you know I was just kidding Slyvester :slight_smile:

I agree with you (from my experience of firing pottery) that taking pots out while the kiln is still too hot can cause them to crack. As you say, even firing earthenware requires a very high heat. Also, such clay is much more susceptible to breakage from stress. So it must have been common knowlege at the time that this could happen, which makes the simile more understandable.

Seems the Chinese, as explained by llt, is clearer than the Pali though.

1 Like
16

@Emptiness
Once again, I think we don’t disagree about the Dhamma in this. The question has always been how the simile works in terms of a pot being set on the ground and immediately breaking. A properly fired pot taken out of the kiln at the right time and set on the ground does not usualy break. Otherwise there would be no intact pottery!

However I think the clue might be found in Slyvester’s comments about firing pottery and also mine in the last paragraph of my first post, which are in agreement. So perhaps this is an answer to the point that some of us have found puzzling. Also, the simile seems clearer in the Chinese–see llt’s explanation.

17

Of course, I know you were jesting.

I wonder if there is any connection in the simile concerning the pot (kumbha) and the next passage which asserts that an arahat cannot abhisaṅkharoti (generate) any form of volition whatsoever.

This famous Vedic creation verb pops up quite frequently in the suttas in the context of volitions. However, it is also used in the context of what a craftsman fashions, eg chariot wheels.

Might a potter fashion (abhisaṅkharoti) a pot? If so, perhaps the simile could be tied to the next passage to suggest that the pot is a metaphor for embodiment (sakkāya), such that when one nibbanizes /becomes cool (sītī­bhavis­santi), the heat of craving is forever lost and is unable to hold embodiment together.

18

Pots do not “proceed” anywhere. Pots are empty.

1 Like
19

[quote=“stuindhamma, post:18, topic:2821”]
Pots do not “proceed” anywhere. Pots are empty.[/quote]
Aren’t we all…“saying” empty is not the same as “knowing” empty.

20

Well, I’m not totally sure I’m getting your point… but in terms of talking about parinibbāna, of course I agree that without craving there would be no volitional formations generated so another ‘embodiment’ would not be fashioned. So the terms you mention make sense in this way, but the idea wouldn’t work in terms of the arahant while alive. When she/he realizes nibbāna, their ‘embodiment’ does not end for that life, ie. the body doesn’t break up on the spot just because craving is lost forever and thus unable to hold ‘embodiment’ together… but when it does, well, there are merely pot shards, the whole cyle of dependent arising has ended…:lotus::bodhileaf:

Back to what I said in my first post, I’ve always loved the similes in the suttas because of their immediacy & directiness. To me, they often offer a powerful way of going more deeply into the heart of the Dhamma. But I have to say, in this sutta that’s not been the case for me. As Bhante Sujato said:

We shouldn’t have to argue from the Dhamma application back to the simile.

So instead of experiencing the power and directness of the image, I’ve kind of felt like my head is going to crack open and unfortunately not due to the heat of craving being forever lost :wink:

1 Like