There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation

I am a beginner and I stumbled upon the sentence in a video given by a monk. > There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a > pleasant sensation I will give you the context > We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about > the happiness. This is probably mind blowing for most people if > they've never studied things like Buddhism. But really what objective > and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically > "What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ? > What is positive about it ?" And you know you can simply you can give > a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant > sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both > meaningless of course. > > And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an > intellectual trick of sorts. **It's actually true that there is no > benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant > sensation**. (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for > pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive. As the monk said, it is a bit mind blowing for me. If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat more. And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy. So my question is: what does the monk really mean ?