The unattractiveness of the body?
maarten
Veteran
I wanted to delve into something that was commented in a closed discussion, but I think it will make a good discussion topic on its own. The comment is this one
When you look at the human body for instance, you realise how it's not inherently beautiful. It's dirty, it naturally smells bad. Especially without a shower. We defecate and urinate.
Compare this to a flower? Clean, beautiful colours and always smells amazing.
So we can see how deluded we are. We see a model as almost angelic in appearance. Why? Because she has long legs and high cheek bones. Legs and cheek bones are not beautiful!
I heard a great analogy. You look at a girls hair and say wow that's gorgeous long hair. Then she cuts it off. You see the hair lying on the ground and think gross. Imagine keeping that in a cupboard! Same hair, but without the whole picture you see how enchanted we are.
Meditation in parts of the body really helps me. You realise lust is a biological tool. It's not bad or good. But our deluded minds are the problem.
I have heard this argument many times, and my problem with this argument is that it fails to acknowledge that we experience the world through our bodies. Maybe the way to explain myself is to make a silly analogy: don't delight in laughter! When you hear someone laughing, what appears so wonderful, are in fact fleshy balloons (lungs) squeezing the air out, and making a slimy valve in the throat vibrate and produce sound, also causing tiny drops of spittle to be evicted from the laughing person's mouth.
Yes, when you interpret laughing in this way, you may come to see it differently. But we love to hear a clean laugh because we know how to interpret it, we feel the intention behind it. That's why it appears to us as a beautiful sound. In the same way, when we are physically attracted to someone (which does not depend on the person having high cheekbones or a cute butt), then the need for having a physical boundary towards that person falls away, and this also makes it much easier to feel emotionally close to that person.
I'm not saying that the Buddha's advice is wrong (I wouldn't dare), but maybe we are interpreting it in a too simplified manner? Perhaps lust is indeed a big obstacle for becoming free, and perhaps meditating on the unattractive qualities of the body is really useful (actually, you might also meditate on the disadvantages of lust), but simply saying that the body is unattractive is taking a very mental viewpoint and ignoring that to your body, another person's body can be absolutely attractive.
Comments
@maarten I find this quite an interesting question for the following reasons.
The comment you have paragraphed is just a view or someones perspective that they have stated explicitly, about something they have obviously pondered before (some from certain buddhist schools will talk about eating food in a similar fashion with revulsion, but it's a necessity none-the-less) - I expect you have heard the saying familiarity breeds contempt, bear that in mind when you see such comments. And so it is for anything we interact with or is happening repeatedly or habitually, its a feature of boredom.
For example, you stated:
Well imagine you are a flower in a community of similar flowers. Day by day you wave in the wind at each other, each wafting scent and vibrant colours out into your world (and you judge the colours and smells as being good or bad), encouraging bees and other insects exchanging the vitality, that keeps your species flowering, but soon those scents and colours change after pollination and the sexual act of the reproductive cycle has ended, some flowers smell quite foul at the end of the cycle. And so it is with humans. Youth and reproductive health looks and smells good (well most of the time especially when you are a hormonally driven youth), but looks rather wrinkled and smells awful in later decades.
But that was an aside to what you find interesting!
And the simple answer in my view is this - you are here because you have a squishy fleshy balloon for lungs and a muscular pump, and muscles, tendons and bones etc. Don't knock it! It's keeping you alive...
But in answer to your question - attractiveness is subjective, and it's all down to what you to like or dislike. I personally find the human body just plain weird, but it has everything I really need.
To your credit, what you quote does go heavy on body revulsion, but think of the context in which it is presented. Context is like a template you lay over an idea to give it a particular spin. It can be taken on and off without changing the nature of the idea.
The context here is the deconstruction (and defusion) of lust, one of our mighty foes on the path to liberation.
The body is the body, a miraculous blob. Clear thinking allows for the relative spin a context puts on something. In that way, I don't see an argument against the body, miraculous blob that it is. Does that make sense?
Miraculous blobs were never designed to make sense, they were just designed
I think the body is something to be grateful for (well, I'm usually thinking other folks' bodies…). I think a good thing the Buddha said was to be mindful of the body "as body." That's different from revulsion.
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."
One of the Buddha's first realizations was that nothing was gained by torturing the body with extreme ascetic practices, but rather that we need the body to be in a healthy condition for our minds to be able to attain enlightenment. It is the mind that we need to train, not the body that we need to torture.
"The practice of renunciation does not entail the tormenting of the body." says Bikkhu Bodhi, "It consists in mental training, and for this the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work.Thus the body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom."
As to the meditation on the body's unattractiveness, also according to Bikkhu Bodhi, "the aim is not to produce aversion and disgust, but detachment, to extinguish the fire of lust by removing its fuel."
Some people love to take the meditation on the body's unattractiveness to extremes. The idea is to remove the attachment and craving factors in (this is my own personal input) what is otherwise a perfectly natural activity.
Let's not forget this teaching was mostly addressed to people who chose to follow a celibate path.
The tone for laypeople is watered down to "refrain from unlawful sexual intercourse."
So, please, let's not relate terms such as "revulsion" and "disgust" with our miraculous gassy smelly blobs!
It helps to remember the Buddha was frequently addressing monastics, and that (to my understanding) a lot of the teachings such as the one quoted were done in an effort to help them maintain their celibacy.
As far as flowers, clearly whoever wrote the post has never been near a corpse flower. Or a pitcher plant. Not all things with flowers are beautiful and nice smelling, lol.
I don't feel a need to manage lust. It's not something that consumes me by any means. I am amazed mostly by the beauty of the grace humans can have. Not by the attractiveness of their individual parts. I find my husband attractive, but it's not why I married him, or even dated him. I was most attracted to his heart. I've helped bathe my grandmother (who is almost 90), I know what happens to the human body well enough to not get hung up on what it looks like in youth.
@maarten I was using those analogies to emphasise a point, that meditating on the reality of individual body parts is a great tool for avoiding lust.
I'm not saying the body is revolting. How we see it is our own perception. Not reality.
I could of been more selective with my terms I used though!
Yes we see our bodies through our bodies, but you also have to remember we create all of our reality through our bodies. Everything you experience including the flowers.
@karasti I used the flowers as it's a strong symbol in Buddhism and flowers are generally considered beautiful. Beauty is an opinion. Who knows some people might think corpse flowers are lovely! Haha
I never tried this technique but to be honest the greatest dificulty in celibacy after overcoming sexual obssession seems to be sexual tension in the presence of other people. I'm not sure this technique can help with that.
I'm not sure what you mean by ....
>
...Elaborate....?
I will try though from my experience in a previous discussion I may have difficulty describing feelings to an audience of Vulcanians. Imagine you are angry with someone and when you are in the presence of that person you feel stressed. It's like your body becomes over charged. It is the same thing only instead of the tension being anger charged it is sexually charged. And is not directed to anyone in particular.After a while this tension may cause chest oppression and indisposition. Please I'm not talking about sexual arousal which is a different thing.
How is it different?
I call sexual arousal to the flux of blood to sexual organs. While this is a form of stress.
I wonder if you mean sexual tension. Sexual tension is your body's way of expressing a sexual attraction your brain cannot or will not acknowledge. It may be totally inappropriate, for one reason or another, but still present. And the body never lies. If the tension is there it needs to be acknowledged, by which you need to accept the feelings that arise.
If I didn't aknowledge the feelings how could I be able to describe them? And yes I also call it sexual tension.
What we seek to repress comes back to haunt us under another guise.
What we want to control, controls us.
It is as unskillful to let our lust run our lives, as the total repression of natural sexual desire. Especially if we are not undertaking a celibate life.
Dharmamom maybe you can assist me. What is the solution then? And what is the difference with monastic celibacy since you are surrounded with people all the same? Why do you think cows are not allowed in Mount Athos?
I think some of you ladies - motivated by compassion for me - ought to put pictures of your naked bodies up so I can er, practise this finding bodies unattractive practice.
I quite like stockings, if you'd like to wear them; just to give me something really tough to practise with.
So sorry I can't humour you in this one, @Tosh.
..
Playboy owns the copyright to all my naked pictures.
But if it helps in your visualization exercise, search my picture in member's pictures and put me in black stockings...
Well, @WanMin, maybe you should be more clear here.
Do you intent to become a nun?
If you don't, why do you feel you have to keep your natural sexual urges under control?
If you do, are you sure you'd be happy undertaking celibacy if you feel strong sexual urges?
Look, I'm not a shrink, but honestly, why would you have so many misgivings about your body's needs?
Dharmamom why is that of any interest to you? Is it not enough that I'm asking for advice to curb sexual tension in social interactions resulting from sexual abstinence? After all this topic is about a technique to control lust. As for your last question why should I put my body needs above my spiritual needs?
Because you don't need to.
Unless you have a desire to ordain.
Don't be so defensive....
Forcing yourself to supress and contain urges which you are in no way obliged to do, may actually prove detrimental to your practice, not beneficial.
It's like wearing a restrictive leather harness to bend you double, as a way of altering your physical shape. Why do it? It stunts your personal growth, inhibits your freedom and handicaps you in a way that leaves you at a social disadvantage.
So if you intend to ordain, we could perhaps give you pointers in a specific direction.
if you have no intention of ordaining, such self-deprivation may in fact be a hindrance, in that self-denial is not always beneficial, healthy or conducive to Mindful and skilful practice.
Lust is normal.
Suppression of Lust is a methodical practce.
Denial of Lust as an undesirable natural phenomenon, actually makes us develop an aversion to something normal; and that is a clinging or grasping that constricts our Minds.
@Frederica I don't think it is normal though it may appear normal. However I'm not a Buddhist and don't belong to any institutionalized religion right now and to be honest don't have any intention of it. I see that maybe then this is not the place to get my answers on this , nevertheless I thank you for your kind advices, yours and @Dharmamom and @poptart. I guess the practice sexual abstinence also requires gongfu so I will persist, answers will come when they have to.
No, the practice of sexual abstinence does not require anything other than the simple desire to not do it.
But you also need a valid and legitimate reason to not do it.
Buddhism forces nothing upon the layperson. It merely seeks to support discipline, and all the Buddha taught was transcendence from Suffering.
If you are seeking to mould yourself into something, by force, then you are not practising Buddhism.
if this is of no interest to you then no, i don't think this is the place for you to find answers.
Ultimately, the answers you seek are already within your grasp; and all you can do, is to let go, and relax. Then, you will see them.
Thank you for your wise words. We are not in disagreement. I meant that time and practice are necessary to consolidate it. Well I was here for an answer and my answer was given I am also here to learn, and that I have had plenty.
The topic of this thread is not about a technique to control lust.
I feel it's a mistake to divorce the body from the spirit, and I'm sorry that you feel you have to curb your sexual tension and indulge in sexual abstinence, and use Buddhism or any institutionalized religion, as an excuse to disguise a major hang-up about sex.
The biggest service you could do to yourself would be to really get to the bottom of why you feel you have to deprive yourself of the pleasure of sex or see it as something wrong in the first place.
And I don't tell you what I would do if I were you because I'll have @federica and @Jason stamping down on me like the gestapo.
@Dharmamom I was rude to you in the past I now see the wisdom of things lying in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe like the Russian proverb says "the woodcutter goes to the forest and only sees wood".
You put a smile on Mr Cushion . . .
The practice is really just about seeing the body as it actually is, as the relevant section of the Satipatthana Sutta shows:
"Furthermore...just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain — wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice — and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.'
Traditionally this kind of practice is recommended for those who experience sensual desire as a strong hindrance.
There's nothing in the suttas which supports that idea, and it's a practice which can be done by anyone. There are lots of useful practices described in the suttas.
I really don't understand this attitude of "I don't have to do that one because I'm not a monk", which begins to look like a way of avoiding any serious practice.
Seems to me that the Buddha's body contemplation on foulness is really just an "expedient means" to bring your mind back to a correct and balanced view of the body, which is that it's neither beautiful or foul, but ultimately neutral. The foulness is not intended to be taken as an absolute truth. The foulness is to counteract the dukkha producing obsession with beauty that people generally have. You could say it's a spectrum of views where on very far left is complete foulness and aversion. On the very far right there is only beauty and attraction. In the very middle is neutrality, where there is neither attraction nor aversion. Most people minds are focused on the right side of the spectrum and hence attraction arises by being more focused on beauty, to the exclusion of foulness. Focusing on the left side of the spectrum is intended to bring your mind back to the middle, not to the far left. Of course if you overdo it, your mind will end up on the left side. But that would be just as incorrect as having your mind on the right side because you would just end up with aversion instead of attraction. The Buddha observed some of him monks doing that and saw their mind going to the left and he told them to stop. The purpose is to bring your mind back to the middle, which is what "the middle way" is all about. Many people mistake foulness contemplation as putting your mind on the left, but it's not about that. It's about bringing it back from the right. That is how it seems to me anyway.
Yes, well explained.
@seeker, I understand that. But there is a problem. Even if one doesn't go to an extreme - finding the body too beautiful and becoming obsessed etc. - there is a thing called biological urge. Thanks to evolution, we have this urge to seek a mate, reproduce, etc.
So even without concepts like beauty, this obsession with the opposite gender (or even same gender) may not go away since it's hardwired. The caveman probably didn't have any concepts of beauty, at least not sophisticated ones. But he too acted on his urge, as do modern people.
So my point is, eliminating the extreme or even eliminating the concept itself may do little good ....since what we're dealing with is a biological urge.
@betaboy yes, but you can see that urge for what it is. The urge is a feeling that arises from conditions. You don't have to associate with it. Therefore your not eradicating it. Like you said. Just giving it no power over who you are.
This may be relevant to the discussion -
Yasa was raised in Varanasi in a life of luxury. His father was a millionaire. The family home was full of servants, musicians and dancers who catered for the family’s needs and entertainment. One day, when he had become a young man, Yasa awoke early and saw his female servants and entertainers asleep in a repulsive state. Disgusted by the spectacle, Yasa realised the vanity of worldly life, and left the family home muttering “Distressed am I, oppressed am I” and journeyed in the direction of Isipatana where the Buddha was temporarily residing after his first five bhikkhus had attained arahantship. This was five days after all of the first five bhikkhus had attained arahantship.
The Buddha was pacing up and down in an open space near where Yasa was muttering “Distressed am I, oppressed am I”, and called Yasa over to him, inviting him to sit down. Yasa took off his golden sandals, saluted and sat down. The Buddha gave a dharma discourse, and Yasa achieved the first stage of arahanthood, sotapanna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasa
Practices like this aren't about eliminating or suppressing, but about seeing clearly how things are. We're animals, we have biological urges, we eat, we defecate, we have sex, and so on. Seeing clearly in this way is likely to reduce the tendency to become obsessed with basic activities like eating and sex.
I agree. That's why it's called samsara IMO.
You can say it's "hardwired" and at the same time you can say Buddhist practice is the practice of "rewiring" so that there is no more dependance on fulling urges.
I think it's inaccurate to say it's just a biological urge, it's also a psychological urge. Eliminating the extreme is quite effective in reducing the urge. That is one of the benefits of being a human being rather than a common animal, the potential to not be ruled by instinctual urges.
^^ Good post. ^^
@seeker242 said:
Beautifully said. Maybe this is one of the Buddha's core teachings in a nutshell, that we have the potential to not be ruled by instinctual urges. Maybe this is the essence of liberation.
You are not separate from the urge... To deny an urge is to deny yourself something, that cannot be denied, and your in a frustrating situation.
I don't have an answer for you here, but if you desire something, you desire it. Good luck trying not to desire it!
In view of the derogative terms some people employ to refer to sex, my very humble opinion is that it is not about serious practice of anything anymore.
Rather, it's about using a religion, a philosophy, a doctrine as an excuse to justify a personal neurosis towards sex. Full stop.
The most wholesome attitude in this case would be to face the music and get to the bottom of why would anyone feel the need to control sexual tension if they have not chosen a celibate path.
We said hundreds of times that Buddhism is not about evasion, about escape from suffering. It is about facing reality as it is. It is about not letting ourselves be ruled by our urges, but also not by our neuroses.
My point is: you have a hang-up about sex. Face it. Don't repress it or delude yourself into thinking that you can do without when you probably aren't ready for it.
The pratice is about seeing things clearly and letting go neurotic sensuous desire. It has nothing to do with "hang ups" which is a straw-man and red-herring all rolled into one.
... and letting go of neurotic sensuous aversion, since we're there.
Honestly, you pull me your red-herring sashimi when I have been feasting over Italian antipasti for ten days...
You know, this thread touches on several subjects that could probably have discussions of their own. One, we have to admit that there is a tendency in the dharma for asceticism, to reject the beautiful and pleasurable part of life as unclean and we can read diatribes that attempt to sneer at anything beautiful or pleasurable as a defilement, something disgusting to be rejected. The lesson is that the only way to advance spiritually is to push anything away that might make you smile. A large streak of asceticism has always been in Buddhism.
So the debate is, while obviously monks are supposed to retreat from the world and so this teaching is one way of dealing with temptation, does that mean non-monks can ignore it? After all, when I looked at my wife, I didn't see all that nastiness. I saw a wonderful human being that I wanted to get closer to. I look at some of the efforts by the sutras to take beauty from the world and wonder if they didn't stray from the Middle Way just a bit in their effort to maintain discipline?
@Cinorjer, I have to agree with you there... I trawled through the 'A to I' website in an effort to find some good, worthwhile word spoken or written in favour of humour, laughter, enjoyment... and everything pointed to those atrributes as being frivolous, undesirable and pointless distractions.
I honestly, truly cannot get my head round the fact I couldn't even find one single word in favour of mirth, fun or being light-hearted.
Maybe @Jason could correct me. He is such a Sutta-bunny, he'll pull something out of at least one of the baskets, surely.....?
I would rather use common sense and realistic based approach. Yes it does feel good to have sex, but it is only momentary, not permanent. But your attachment to that lust keep giving birth to another lust, and it keeps continuing that way forever. You will keep wanting more and will never be satisfied. It is like an addiction. Any way, this is how I see it.
Define "neurotic sensuous desire". At what point does normal sexuality become neurotic?
Yes, @Meatball. But it's not that what was in question.
As with everything, the problem is not sex, rather your personal attachment or aversion to sex that is the problem.
The person who sparked this discussion -who I have now learned, has left the site anyway- talked about learning how to control her lust in social situations and that lust is not normal.
Sex is the most normal thing in the world, except that extreme, neurotic aversion to it renders it unnatural and out of proportion, and it ends up taking over your life, as much as indulging excessively in it does.
But then again, the problem is not sex. It's how you relate to it.
I agree with @dharmamom - sex is natural, don't get hung up on it - the world is fully clothed because of our hang-ups on sex.
We wake every morning, is that an addiction? Why do you keep waking up - because that is what you mind does.
We eat and drink and go to the toilet. is that an addiction? No because that is what the body does.
We talk to people, is that an addiction? No that is how we relate to others.
So we can talk about what arises spontaneously however we wish, it's open to interpretation, and cultural taboos, and if that is as an addiction, so be it. But would it have arisen regardless of whether you had desired it (in an addictive way) or not?
The Buddha was an extreme ascetic. Extreme.
For him the middle way meant behaving in a less severe way but still ascetic. The idea that we should adopt unhealthy eating habits, no sex, no music, no jokes, no cushions [no o o o . . . lobster screams] etc is just lifeless dukkha for all except sensory masochistic monastic gimps. Aversion therapy (contemplating corpses) is sick unless required due to dharma cult requirements or to get to the next zombie level.
We are not trying to become unnatural . . . well I am not . . . restraint and discipline is skilful . . . repression is not :wave: .
Emptiness is form and nothing is empty . . .