The Sutta on Burning Heads
Have you ever come across the metaphor of the man with his turban on
fire? In this Sutta, the Buddha asks a group of monks:
"When ones clothes catch fire or one's head catches fire, what should one do?"
They respond, "When ones clothes or head catch fire, one should arouse zeal, effort, exertion, consistency, total mindfulness & clear
awareness in putting out that fire."
A friend summarized how he understood the Buddha's response. He claimed that the Buddha said one shouldn't pay attention to the fire but should only develop understanding of the four noble truths. This seemed to say that we need not concern ourselves with material or social problems, such as illness and poverty, but should just pursue disembodied enlightenment, go off to a cave and do nothing but meditate.
So I started to argue with him (just as another friend had done the day before). I then caught myself and asked to see the Sutta he was quoting. Here is the Buddha's response:
"Bhikkhus, one should be disinterested (equanimous), one shouldn't pay attention to the cloth or the head that is on fire. One should arouse zeal, effort, exertion, consistency, total mindfulness & clear awareness in realizing the four noble truths that are not yet realized according to reality." The Buddha then summarized the four noble truths.
This disturbed me. Is the Buddha telling us to ignore fires on the head, physical illness, environmental degradation, social injustices, and all the other problems that bother me? Or is this a spurious Sutta, snuck in by monks who spurn the world with some disembodied pseudo-spirituality?
My friend helped me to see that the point of the Sutta is that it never works to try solving a problem just be reacting to it habitually. If one doesn't see the nature of the fire and what is burning, its causal process, its quenching, and the correct (according to nature) way to quench it, then one will fail. This applies to all the kinds of fires (problems), whether mental, emotional, communal, social, or whatever.
Of course, pretending that there are no fires, as the Thai Sangha's leadership has been doing, won't do any good either.[Cela-sutta #4 in Samyutta-nikaya, Mahavara-vagga (vol. 5), Sacca-samyutta (#12 of 12), Sisapavana-vagga (#4 of 11)]
A comment from a friend: Compare with the poisoned arrow metaphor. Right Action is
required fast, not "spurious" (I like that word!) metaphysical discussions,
i.e., fire in headgear should be put out before discussing the matters of who lit the match. I
don't think the point is ignoring the woes of the world, but the treatment is more important than the cause at first. So your friend is
only half right.
Santikaro: Your conclusion seems rather quick and may be only half right too. A
metaphysical discussion of causes, especially practically irrelevant ones, is useless. However, I was careful to use the word "see" rather than figure out,
deduce, or understand. If you don't see the directly relevant causes -- e.g., the pain comes from the arrow sticking in one's arm -- you won't get the arrow
out.
I am wary of "but the treatment is more important than the cause at first." This is the attitude of most activists over here, including the supposedly
Buddhist ones. We see lot of treatments that not only fail to solve problems but also cause new ones. In some cases, the causes of suffering can be seen
immediately. In more complex & collective situations, some analysis is needed
to see the problem & its causes clearly. In short, there is a Middle Way between speculations and reactionary
treatment (usually habitual or opinionated).
And from a Zen friend: This is interesting. In the Zen tradition there is the saying,
"Practice as if saving one's head from fire." Here the implication is to deal with the matter at hand, much like the parable of the arrow. I
have never heard anything like "Bhikkhus, one should be disinterested (equanimous), one shouldn't pay attention to the cloth
or the head that is on fire." It sounds pretty unrealistic. Unless, of course, you set the fire yourself or you want to study fire. And I
don't make light of that kind of attention.
Santikaro: I have understood the metaphor the same way that you have, which is
the reason that this Sutta interested me enough to send to y'all. It is challenging that "practical" assumption.
Again, I think the point is not that one should totally ignore the fire, but that one
can't just focus on the fire. The fire must be seen in its entirety, that is, causal context. Seeing doesn't mean theory or
intellectual pondering. With modern chemicals, or even some ancient oils, putting out the fire with water won't work. One must know the
nature of the fire & its fuel. In Ajarn Sompong's (the friend) illustrations of
this point, one monk is running to put out the fire & that fans the flames on his head.
Since the metaphor is meant to convey a perspective on the fires of greed, anger, & delusion, application to physical & social fires is
probably secondary (if at all intended originally). The usual knee-jerk responses to such emotions is to suppress or indulge them. That never
works. One must see their nature, causes, quenching, and path.
Zen friend: Another expression that Katagiri Roshi used was to talk about
"emergency case." When one is well trained one just responds appropriately. Katagiri Roshi was suggesting that each of us has
innate wisdom that arises, sometimes surprisingly, in an emergency. Kind of like training.
Santikaro: In light of this Sutta, such appropriate response is due to training
in seeing the 4-fold truth of everything, that is, its dependent co-arising & ceasing. Otherwise, what seems "appropriate" is actually
just custom or habit. Training to sit still or follow monastic customs or chant
mantras is never the point. Real training is "looking & seeing
& letting go"!