🟧 Leave off Lacerating, The Exposition on Burning (Week of June 20, 2021)

[SDC]

Not exactly the most pleasant read, “The Exposition on Burning” gives a clear, ominous warning about what can happen if we were to die without having understood the significance of gratification and why it is dangerous. (I promise to look for something happier for next week! )

Enjoy.




Saṁyutta Nikāya
Saḷāyatanasaṁyutta
Ādittapariyāyasutta (The Exposition on Burning)SN 35.235 (PTS 4.169 – PTS 4.171)
Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Pali

• Bhikkhus, I will teach you a Dhamma exposition on the theme of burning. Listen to that….
  
  “And what, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma exposition on the theme of burning? It would be better, bhikkhus, for the eye faculty to be lacerated by a red-hot iron pin burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a form cognizable by the eye. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “It would be better, bhikkhus, for the nose faculty to be lacerated by a sharp nail cutter burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in an odour cognizable by the nose. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “It would be better, bhikkhus, for the tongue faculty to be lacerated by a sharp razor burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a taste cognizable by the tongue. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “It would be better, bhikkhus, for the body faculty to be lacerated by a sharp spear burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a tactile object cognizable by the body. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “It would be better, bhikkhus, to sleep—for sleep, I say, is barren for the living, fruitless for the living, insensibility for the living—than to think such thoughts as would induce one who has come under their control to bring about a schism in the Saṅgha. Having seen this danger, I speak thus.
  
  “In regard to this, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: ‘Leave off lacerating the eye faculty with a red-hot iron pin burning, blazing, and glowing. Let me attend only to this: So the eye is impermanent, forms are impermanent, eye-consciousness is impermanent, eye-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is impermanent.
  
  “‘Leave off lacerating the ear faculty with a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing. Let me attend only to this: So the ear is impermanent, sounds are impermanent, ear-consciousness is impermanent, ear-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with ear-contact as condition … that too is impermanent.
  
  “‘Leave off lacerating the nose faculty with a sharp nail cutter burning, blazing, and glowing. Let me attend only to this: So the nose is impermanent, odours are impermanent, nose-consciousness is impermanent, nose-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with nose-contact as condition … that too is impermanent.
  
  “‘Leave off lacerating the tongue faculty with a sharp razor burning, blazing, and glowing. Let me attend only to this: So the tongue is impermanent, tastes are impermanent, tongue-consciousness is impermanent, tongue-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with tongue-contact as condition … that too is impermanent.
  
  “‘Leave off lacerating the body faculty with a sharp spear burning, blazing, and glowing. Let me attend only to this: So the body is impermanent, tactile objects are impermanent, body-consciousness is impermanent, body-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with body-contact as condition … that too is impermanent.
  
  “‘Leave off sleeping. Let me attend only to this: So the mind is impermanent, mental phenomena are impermanent, mind-consciousness is impermanent, mind-contact is impermanent, whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that too is impermanent.’
  
  “Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards the eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant … towards the mind, mental phenomena, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, and whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition…. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’
  
  “This, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma exposition on the theme of burning.”

[SDC]

Thoughts?

• To what extent would one have to "stand tied" to the gratification for this description to apply? Does it apply to those who have not developed any sense restraint or just to those who were unable to handle the shock of death?

• SN 35.13 describes removing desire and lust for these six sense bases. Perhaps this is why simply destroying the faculty with a hot iron spear is not enough for wisdom.

• The warning about the mind is interesting. Instead of saying it would be better to stab the brain with a hot spear, which would obviously result in death, the Buddha said it would be better to sleep; for sleep is "barren for the living, fruitless for the living, insensibility for the living". But the warning is not broadly about what would happen if one were to die with the mind standing tied to the gratification in thoughts, but specifically about think such thoughts that would induce one under their control to bring about a schism. Interesting. Unfortunately, BBs notes did not offer much insight into this other than that the creation of a schism guarantees the next move is to hell.

Looking forward to this weeks discussion.

[sunnat]

It applies to when one is tied to gratification... and one should die on that occasion. That is the mindset at death and that is what makes rebirth in hell or animal realm possible.

Obviously there is no recommendation to lacerate. It's just an illustration of what how bad the result of tying on to gratification is. So being asleep, insensible, barren, fruitless is on par with lacerating a sense organ. The only option is to abandon delight, aversion, ignorance in relation to the (impermanent, constantly changing, not-self) sensory impressions on the functioning live sense organs. And thus proceed on the path as well as should one die at that moment that outcome is different.

[Sam Vara]

Thoughts?

• To what extent would one have to "stand tied" to the gratification for this description to apply? Does it apply to those who have not developed any sense restraint or just to those who were unable to handle the shock of death?

Yes, given the graphic nature of the descriptions, this question really stands out for me. We really need to avoid something, so what is that something?

The phrase "in the sign or in the features" suggests to me that we are not talking here about the whole sphere or scope of each sense, but to particular things that arise within that sphere: objects of that sense. And within that, we have a whole range of different relationships to it. At one extreme, there is an addiction-like attachment to objects, when we obsessively feel that we can't do without them and frequently dwell upon them. At the other extreme, a mild preference for them, a wish that they remain for longer and don't go away just yet. (To get a sense of this, I'm thinking about something like extreme sexual and romantic obsession at the first extreme; and fleeting pleasure like the scent of a flower, or birdsong, at the second...)

How far along that spectrum does the phrase "grasping the sign through the features" denote?

And is there a difference between this "grasping the sign through the features" and "standing tied"? Are they synonyms? Does the "standing" bit mean that the grasping has somehow become permanent? If so, it presumably means that the contact with the object is intermittent, but the tendency to grasp is always there. Likewise with the "tied" bit. There is a difference between grasping something, which still retains the possibility of agency - one can cease to grasp, let go - and being tied to it, which appears to rule out agency and spells big trouble.

Either way, a very scary sutta which provokes the right kinds of thought...

EDIT: A further thought on this. Hell or the animal realm as destinations are dependent upon two things: the standing tied, and dying in that condition. This leads us in the direction of one's last thoughts determining a post mortem state, but how likely is it that the two will actually coincide? If I'm obsessed with my new car and step back to admire it and get hit by a bus, then that seems to combine the two conditions. But if I often think of my lovely new car but that's not foremost in my mind as I expire with pneumonia, does that mean that the two conditions do not coincide? Or is an underlying tendency to mechanophilia enough to take me to those bad places if I have not shaken myself free by the end of my life?

[Spiny Norman]

Thoughts?

• To what extent would one have to "stand tied" to the gratification for this description to apply? Does it apply to those who have not developed any sense restraint or just to those who were unable to handle the shock of death?

Yes, given the graphic nature of the descriptions, this question really stands out for me. We really need to avoid something, so what is that something?

The phrase "in the sign or in the features" suggests to me that we are not talking here about the whole sphere or scope of each sense, but to particular things that arise within that sphere: objects of that sense. And within that, we have a whole range of different relationships to it. At one extreme, there is an addiction-like attachment to objects, when we obsessively feel that we can't do without them and frequently dwell upon them. At the other extreme, a mild preference for them, a wish that they remain for longer and don't go away just yet. (To get a sense of this, I'm thinking about something like extreme sexual and romantic obsession at the first extreme; and fleeting pleasure like the scent of a flower, or birdsong, at the second...)

How far along that spectrum does the phrase "grasping the sign through the features" denote?

And is there a difference between this "grasping the sign through the features" and "standing tied"? Are they synonyms? Does the "standing" bit mean that the grasping has somehow become permanent? If so, it presumably means that the contact with the object is intermittent, but the tendency to grasp is always there. Likewise with the "tied" bit. There is a difference between grasping something, which still retains the possibility of agency - one can cease to grasp, let go - and being tied to it, which appears to rule out agency and spells big trouble.

Either way, a very scary sutta which provokes the right kinds of thought...

Maybe an initial grasping at a particular sense-object, which then becomes habitual or addictive?

[Sam Vara]

Maybe an initial grasping at a particular sense-object, which then becomes habitual or addictive?

Yes, that's the sort of thing. But how addictive must it be?

Apologies - I edited my post when thinking about this, so our posts crossed.

[Spiny Norman]

Maybe an initial grasping at a particular sense-object, which then becomes habitual or addictive?

Yes, that's the sort of thing. But how addictive must it be?

These days I can walk past the ice-cream freezer cabinet in the supermarket without having to buy some.

[Sam Vara]

Maybe an initial grasping at a particular sense-object, which then becomes habitual or addictive?

Yes, that's the sort of thing. But how addictive must it be?

These days I can walk past the ice-cream freezer cabinet in the supermarket without having to buy some.

Have you tried Ben & Jerry's "Burning Lacerating Razor" flavour?

[Spiny Norman]

Yes, that's the sort of thing. But how addictive must it be?

These days I can walk past the ice-cream freezer cabinet in the supermarket without having to buy some.

Have you tried Ben & Jerry's "Burning Lacerating Razor" flavour?

I guess the point is not seeing the danger in these habitual addictive behaviours. Too much ice-cream would make you overweight, for example, and you'd get "ice-cream withdrawal" if you stopped suddenly.
Though I've never had a problem with the impermanence of ice-cream.

[Bundokji]

Stating that it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations makes the example of lacerating pretty harsh. What would warrant such harsh analogy/comparison? Firstly, at the moment of death, if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, a lower destination is not guaranteed, but only a possibility. Other possibilities remain open such as rebirth in higher realms. Also for a human to imagine himself being reborn as an animal is not as bad as lacerating one of the senses. Hell would be pretty bad, but the logic of impermanence, and being open to other possibilities still makes lacerating sounds radical and unwarranted.

It seems that the vulnerability to being reborn in a lower realm (uncertainty) is what warrants such comparison from the noble one.

[Sam Vara]

Stating that it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations makes the example of lacerating pretty harsh. What would warrant such harsh analogy/comparison? Firstly, at the moment of death, if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, a lower destination is not guaranteed, but only a possibility. Other possibilities remain open such as rebirth in higher realms. Also for a human to imagine himself being reborn as an animal is not as bad as lacerating one of the senses. Hell would be pretty bad, but the logic of impermanence, and being open to other possibilities still makes lacerating sounds radical and unwarranted.

It seems that the vulnerability to being reborn in a lower realm (uncertainty) is what warrants such comparison from the noble one.

The possibility is expressed by the idiom ṭhānametaṁ vijjati; "this case/occurrence is found". That's certainly possibility, but it seems to me to be more along the lines of "this stuff happens", rather than a remote chance that one might take a calculated risk on. And remember that being reborn as an animal means - just like hell - zero chance of hearing and practising the Dhamma. Maybe it's the sense of losing oneself, of missing the chance of creating good kamma and garnering insight, which merits the comparison with the agony of lacerating one's sense organs.

[confusedlayman]

if we dont see sign how can we function? buddha needs to see sign on road and house so he can go for alms... so the problem is not seeing signs but gratification... gratification is lost when u see sign but dont form thickness in mind related to it... or mind dont push hard towards that

tight hugging of grasped sign for its feeling ?

[Dan74]

Even in the case of a person who is free from addiction, there is the habitual background intoxication with the sense-objects. Spend some time in strict retreat or sensory isolation or even fasting for a few days, let alone a longer stay at a temple and it becomes pretty obvious.

And what of the prospect of losing the sense-objects? People awaiting execution, like Dostoyevsky, occasionally wrote of this. The last ray of dawn, the last birdsong, the last time one tastes coffee, breathes the morning air.. Unknowingly we are intoxicated with the sense-objects and this intoxication forms the background to our experience.

[Pulsar]

Dan74 wrote

The last ray of dawn, the last birdsong,
the last time one tastes coffee,
breathes the morning air.. Unknowingly we are intoxicated with the sense-objects and this intoxication forms the background to our experience.

This is pretty scary, stated like you do.
I often think of "how does one get rid of the last remnants of delight" There is a sutta that speaks of this...
as long as one has the subtlest or faintest chance of delight??? one is bound to be born again.
It scares me to death! no pun intended.
The sutta you selected Dearest SDC, is amazing in the story telling ability...

It would be better, bhikkhus, for the eye faculty to be
lacerated by a red-hot iron pin burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a form cognizable by the eye.

The intention behind is that moment one grasps the sign of a form or shape, by naming it, DO begins, making you suffer due to the grasping.
Nama-rupa ->consciousness.
Thanks SDC for a selection that brings truth home, so startlingly.
Best

[Dan74]

Dan74 wrote

The last ray of dawn, the last birdsong,
the last time one tastes coffee,
breathes the morning air.. Unknowingly we are intoxicated with the sense-objects and this intoxication forms the background to our experience.

This is pretty scary, stated like you do.
I often think of "how does one get rid of the last remnants of delight" There is a sutta that speaks of this...
as long as one has the subtlest or faintest chance of delight??? one is bound to be born again.
It scares me to death! no pun intended.

I don't find it so scary. Most, if not all of us, are bound to be reborn. And how can one expect to truly let go of what one has not yet fully tasted?

I find many Buddhists are terrified of life. But never having embraced life, how can one begin to relinquish its pleasures? We think we can just skip that stage and mistake our fear of life for renunciation, but I don't think it works that way. Those who are stuck with fear and aversion to life and its samsaric charms can never free themselves from it.

Only those who have openly drunk from the cup and grew disenchanted can freely toss it away.

Or so it seems to me.