The loathsomeness of the body

Liliana

Hi everybody, this is my first discussion.

I've been reading about the practice of asabha bhavana -the meditation in which you think about unpretty body parts and corpses, used to diminish sexual desire.

I've read in some related texts, that in the Sutras, the human body is described as something gross. "A bag of excrement", "a heap of corruption", for example. Also, there's a story in which a king offers the hand of his daughter in marriage to the Buddha, and he responds: "What would I want with this piece of meat, excrement and urine? I wouldn't even touch it with the foot".

Finding that the Buddha used these denigrating expressions to refer to the human body makes me feel confused. I think it's an error and an exaggeration to consider the body to be nothing more than a compilation of gross things -they do exist in our bodies, of course, but we are also made of pretty parts, or at least, undisgusting parts.

It seems like the Buddha contradicts himself, because first he says these things, and later he gives teachings about how to love and respect ourselves and others, and live in peace with the unpleasant things. Plus, he recommended taking proper care of the body and gave advice on how to do so.

So, finally, what's the buddhist opinion of the human body? Did the Buddha really teach that we should see our own bodies and the bodies of others as repulsive things, and not to touch each other even with the foot?

I would love to hear your answers on this.

PHennings12

Hello Liliana,

To answer your question, there is no opinion about the human body. What the buddha was trying to teach in this verse was the realization that the physical realm that we live in is all an illusion. Everything we see, feel, smell, hear, and taste is nothing but a false understanding of life. "A bag of excrement" is but a simple statement that our perception of what is horrible, bad, and wrong is frivolous because all of it exists within our minds and not in the world outside of our minds. Your statement of how "we are also made of pretty parts" also makes a good example of this. Who is to say that those "pretty parts" exist? Our mind, our perceptions create a veil of illusion that keeps us from realizing the Ultimate Reality. This is what the Buddha was seeking to impart upon all who were listening to him in this sutra. The buddha was not contradicting himself at all. For, when one achieves enlightenment, all things are the same to that individual. All things are an illusion which, upon our realization of it, are a cause for the suffering that we all endure in this existence. Hope this clarifies any confusions.

Best,
Buddha

SattvaPaul

It was a specific practice taught to a specific audience, imo, and nothing to do with world being an illusion, which I doubt is taught anywhere in Buddhism anyway.

PrairieGhost

Hi Liliana

Also, there's a story in which a king offers the hand of his daughter in marriage to the Buddha

I had trouble with this sutta too. I didn't like the way the Buddha is said to have spoken here, and still don't. It's not a skillful sutta for modern western readers, and may well put people off Buddhism.

But the suttas were created, mainly for a male audience, at a particular time in history. The core message is not that the body is loathsome; what the sutta is trying to do is speak to men who already have sexist, archaic attitudes and unquestioned sensual desires. It's trying to get them to reject their desire for women and choose instead to follow the Buddhist path. It uses shock tactics to achieve this.

It doesn't address attitudes to women, because the dhamma instead goes straight to the root of such attitudes - the desire to make possessions of objects and people. The original teacher of that sutta knew that, having actualised the teachings, respect for all beings, including women, would follow.

All that said, it's still an open question as to whether that sutta was entirely skillful, even in the context of the ancient world. Personally I'm not convinced it was, and I'd tell that to the Buddha's face. He may not have said it; there may not have been a Buddha. There is a path though.

Buddhism comes to us from the ancient world, and still has ugly traces of that world in its organisational structures and its scriptures. The truth it points to does not.

Theswingisyellow

The body isn't loathsome.
Attachment to it is.

tikaL2o6

So, finally, what's the buddhist opinion of the human body? Did the Buddha really teach that we should see our own bodies and the bodies of others as repulsive things, and not to touch each other even with the foot?

The Buddhist opinion on the human body is that the body is impermanent. That which is impermanent is suffering. That which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change is not fit to be regarded thus: 'This is me, this is mine, this is myself."

The fourth noble truth of the middle way leading to the cessation of suffering is the eightfold path. The seventh factor of the eightfold path is called right mindfulness. Right mindfulness is divided into four factors, the first of which is contemplation of the body. Contemplation of the body is divided into fourteen factors. They are:

1) Mindfulness of breathing.
2) The four postures.
3) Bodily movement.
4) Foulness of the body.
5) The Elements.
6-14) Death stages.

Contemplating the foulness of the body is used in order to establish right mindfulness, which in turn is necessary to fulfill the eightfold path, which when fulfilled brings about cessation. Whether or not you wish to make contact between your feet and the bodies of others, or others feet and your body, is an entirely personal matter, and one that should be made based on sound and rational internal deduction.

PrairieGhost

tikaL2o6

Contemplating the foulness of the body is an integral part of what the Buddha taught.

Yes, but I'd like to add that it caused some monks to kill themselves after Buddha taught this, by going too far and believing foulness was an intrinsic essence of the body's nature. Contemplating the foulness and the potential for suffering in the body is a practice to end attachment. That's all.

Jason

I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu does a good job of explaining the usefulness of this type of meditation is his Dhamma talk, "Contemplation of the Body."

PrairieGhost

Yes, he says:

The body isn't the problem; the attachment is the problem

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/meditations2.html#contemplation

I'm just warning people, attachment to the body is bad. Attachment to loathsomeness is worse.

When the Buddha points out the negative side of things, it's never just to stop at the negative side. It's to point you toward the Deathless. It's to remind you as a warning: This is the way things are, so what are you going to do to stay happy in the face of how they are? Only the Deathless can give you a secure refuge at a time like that.

He's very good, Thanissaro, whatever he turns his mind to.

There's the example that Ven. Ratthapala gave of the king who controls a really large, prosperous territory. Word comes that there's another territory to the east that he could conquer and rule as well. So he sends troops to conquer it. Then he's told of another territory to the west. If he wants, he could probably send over his army and defeat that one, too. So he goes over to the west and just keeps expanding, expanding his territory until he's got everything — east, west, north, south — on this side of the ocean. Then someone tells his of another territory that he could conquer on the other side of the ocean, so he decides to go ahead and do that.

That's the way it is with the mind: There's never a sense of enough. These worlds we create never provide satisfaction.

From elsewhere in the talk, but also relevant, I think.

genkaku

"Loathsome" is such a powder-keg of a word. Maybe it exists in a world with child molesters or something similar... really, really, really heinous and icky.

As usual with high-powered verbiage, "loathsome" is offered as a kick-ass way of pointing to some other, less-icky approach ... something tasty and serene and beautiful. The Bible does something similar when it observes that we are all born "between piss and shit." Eeeuuwww! Nifty shock value, but everyone, every day, pisses and shits ... just as everyone has a body and mind that may be seen as "loathsome."

Shock value has its value, but dwelling on shock-value, over time, is counter-prodctive. "Loathsome?" Sure. Stinky as piss and shit? Sure. Attached and mistaken? Sure. It's par for the course for human existence. And in one sense, the question that has to be asked is, "So what?!"

Sure, we can all don our spiritual shoes and point out better ways of being, less obstructed ways to walk, more nourishing ways of being. Knock yourself out.

But I think that what is just par for the course deserves neither accolades nor opprobrium. It's just the facts of life and the best anyone can do is -- gently but firmly -- pay attention and take responsibility and leave the powder-keg words alone.

DairyLama

Did the Buddha really teach that we should see our own bodies and the bodies of others as repulsive things, and not to touch each other even with the foot?

I think he taught that we should see things as they really are, including the body. Bodies can be very attractive from the outside, but cut one open and it doesn't look quite so nice.

caz

Buddha taught these things to reduce attachment as attachment to Samsaric pleasures creates the causes for suffering. This is mainly the teaching of the renunciates, Buddha also taught how to use attachment to abandon attachment in his Tantric teachings as well. It is helpful to consider Buddha as a skilled doctor, a doctor gives different types of medicine to cure diseases and there are also multiple method to cure disease as well.

SattvaPaul

From a psychological perspective (not that I am any expert on it) it would seem that such methods are temporary at best and potentially dangerous. Maybe it can weaken attachment, but some people may get the idea that this is the way to eliminate desire. I believe desire and the perception of beauty can be used on the path, not destroyed.

DairyLama

...a doctor gives different types of medicine to cure diseases and there are also multiple method to cure disease as well.

Yes, the Buddha taught many different types of practice, and some are aimed at specific issues or personality types. So for example metta bhavana can be seen as an antidote to the taint of ill will.

Floating_Abu

What the porpoise said. Context is king.

how

Gee, I wonder how I'd deal with a bunch of hormonally charged celibate young guys with way too much time on their hands?
I think I'd counter their sexually selective mental preoccupations with a meditation on what that selective preoccupation is choosing not to see.
It is not about not loving, it's about seeing clearly.

enko

From a psychological perspective (not that I am any expert on it) it would seem that such methods are temporary at best and potentially dangerous. Maybe it can weaken attachment, but some people may get the idea that this is the way to eliminate desire. I believe desire and the perception of beauty can be used on the path, not destroyed.

Agree 100%. This kind of revulsion for the human body as a means of quelling desire i see no benefit too and can be dangerous in this modern world. One can see things for what they are without such negativity.

If someone wants to meditate on corpses to diminish their sexual desire. Good luck to you but quite frankly, IMHO, that's messed up.

DairyLama

Gee, I wonder how I'd deal with a bunch of hormonally charged celibate young guys with way too much time on their hands?

Run away!

DairyLama

One can see things for what they are without such negativity.

I disagree. Seeing things for what they are means seeing both the beauty and the ugliness ( or the unsatisfactoriness ). That's what the First Noble Truth is about.

seeker242

Finding that the Buddha used these denigrating expressions to refer to the human body makes me feel confused. I think it's an error and an exaggeration to consider the body to be nothing more than a compilation of gross things -they do exist in our bodies, of course, but we are also made of pretty parts, or at least, undisgusting parts.

Yet those filled with lust only see the pretty parts and they completely and totally ignore the gross things. His words are an exaggeration and a deliberate one IMO. To counteract peoples tendency to do their own exaggerating on just the pretty parts and to stop the complete ignoring of the gross parts. It's to turn your focus back to actual reality because to think that the body is just pretty and that's it, isn't the actual reality of it. That is how I see it anyway.

DairyLama

It's to turn your focus back to actual reality because to think that the body is just pretty and that's it, isn't the actual reality of it.

Yes, that's the point.

PrairieGhost

seeker242

It's to turn your focus back to actual reality because to think that the body is just pretty and that's it, isn't the actual reality of it.

porpoise

Yes, that's the point.

So long as the point is not made to be an actual reality.

Loathesomeness is a practical reality. Excrement would not be disgusting if it did not cause disease. Loathesomeness is as empty as beauty.

seeker242

But it is an actual reality! Excrement not causing disease is not part of reality, because the reality is that it does cause disease. Foulness is an intrinsic quality of the body because things like excrement not causing disease, isn't reality.

PrairieGhost

There's a difference between a self-existent property and a dependently originated property. The former we're stuck with, the later can be understood and worked with. For instance, dung makes the flowers grow.

To a farmer who depends on the land, excrement is in a way beautiful.

enko

I disagree. Seeing things for what they are means seeing both the beauty and the ugliness ( or the unsatisfactoriness ). That's what the First Noble Truth is about.

That's not what i meant. Focusing on the human body as a corpse or a hodge podge of disgusting discharges to reduce ones sexual desire is superficial and does not confront the actual desire but is just throwing a blanket over it. Why run? Why hide? See the desire for what it is, a natural part of being human, alive and healthy and let it go. Sometimes welcome it but never cling to it (that is where i see the key distinction being mindful), such as when i am with my partner because i am not a monk and this goes to the OP's question and anyone else that lives in the lay persons world. And i realise she poops, pees and bleeds but this does nothing to diminish .....

Reminds me of the old bro science method of prolonging ejaculation during sex for those that arrive too early. Just concentrate on something unattractive it will help you last longer. Here it is the same, just think of the human body in an unattractive way, you are sure to want it less. Blah.

Apologies to anyone that found some of that response too crude

DairyLama

See the desire for what it is, a natural part of being human, alive and healthy and let it go.

That sounds good, but what how do you actually see desire for what it is, and how do you let it go? In practice?

SattvaPaul

You just ride the wave of desire.

DairyLama

You just ride the wave of desire.

I have no idea what that means. :-/

SattvaPaul

You just ride the wave of desire.

I have no idea what that means. :-/

It's just energy, watch it arise and pass. Enjoy it but don't succumb to it. Just experience it in open awareness.

It's probably one of the most difficult things ever, so don't have high expectations either.

The key, imo, is no rejection, which is the flip side of clinging.

seeker242

There's a difference between a self-existent property and a dependently originated property. The former we're stuck with, the later can be understood and worked with. For instance, dung makes the flowers grow.

To a farmer who depends on the land, excrement is in a way beautiful.

However, farming has nothing to do with training your mind to become pure in mind. This teaching is about mind training. To take it out of that context is to misinterpret it.

Sabre

I think everybody who thinks this training of loathsomeness of the body can be helpful, should pick it up. Monks often advice it, and the Buddha also did it often. I find it incredable interesting and helpful. It isn't negative, it gives joy. It isn't dangerous, it is liberating.

This practice may not be for everybody, but certainly it is not for nobody. Also, it is not time dependent, not only for the time of the Buddha. If anything, it is more actual now than ever, with all the sexually tinted advertisement you see everywhere (at least in my country).

Metta!

andyrobyn

I have spoken with women who find it easy to focus on the loathsome aspects of the male human body and hence have little desire for sex ... this is not healthy and balanced in my opinion.
However, I have been told that choosing to focus on the loathsome aspects of the female body and even watching videos on autopsies of female bodies has defintately helped males who were troubled by lust. As has been suggested already, I also see this as a superficial and short term fix to an aspect of the human condition which needs to be accepted.
During my times of celibacy, I succesfully focus the energy in different ways - sublimination in Freudian terms.
I know many believe the human sexual drive is very different for men and woman. My experiences and understanding suggest it is more useful to focus on the similarity rather than the differences, which are dominated mainly by socially and culturally deriven prejudices and stereotypes.

enko

See the desire for what it is, a natural part of being human, alive and healthy and let it go.

That sounds good, but what how do you actually see desire for what it is, and how do you let it go? In practice?

what @sattvapaul said ....

be mindful. As with any emotion, its not about suppression just awareness. If i see a beautiful woman I will admire her appearance or her curves but i wont cling to the desire. It is fleeting, it is natural, it is there, it is gone. I certainly dont care to think about any less attractive parts or how she might look first thing in the morning with the flu for example!

DairyLama

The key, imo, is no rejection, which is the flip side of clinging.

That's fine, but it surely means not rejecting the less attractive aspects of our experience.

DairyLama

I certainly dont care to think about any less attractive parts or how she might look first thing in the morning with the flu for example!

Why not?

Liliana

Hi again people, I'm glad to see you commented on this. Right now I don't have a lot of time to reflect properly on all of your answers, but you can be sure that I really want to do it; arriving at a conclusion on this is very important for me.

Soon I will be leaving all the comments and ideas I can. Thank you very much.