Topic: Shantideva and death, decay, desire

[Endless Whisper]

I was reading No Time to Lose: A Timely Guide to the Bodhisattva by Pema Chodron Yesterday. Much of her writing is based off Shantideva's work on the Bodhisattva Vow. Reading Shantideva is one of those deals where, you have to really struggle to see what Shantideva was trying to do. The discourse was to expand on the precepts, make them strict. But also, do everything Shantideva could, to break the vision and perception of the monks so they could overcome their desires for the world, and desires of the flesh.

Some can be read here, and when you read through it, you'll see how Shantideva does this. People try to avoid things like filth, disease, excrement, death, skeleton bones and rotting flesh would make us sick. A rotting corpse reeks to high heaven. I know my sis's BIL, when he would speak about finding dead bodies on the job, how horrific the smell was. We smell like that, a horrific stench, after we die. Our shit stinks, our bodies will stink after we die. When we're sick we hack up really disgusting phlem. We all blow snot out of our nose. If we didnt bathe for days we'd be greasy, and if we didn't brush our teeth, we'd have really gross breath. We have to constantly shower, shave, brush, to keep really nasty smells off of us.

I could gross you out more, but I dont want to. You get the idea. Shantideva did a similar strategy. In a way, he was telling the truth to the monks:

58. If you do not desire to touch soil and the like because it is smeared with excrement, how can you wish to touch the body out of which it is excreted?

59. If you do not have passion for what is impure, why do you embrace someone else, who is a seed or arisen from a field of filth and nourished by it?

60. You do not desire a dirty worm originating from filth because it is small, but you desire a body that consists of much filth and also born from filth.

61. Not only do you not abhor your own filth, out of craving, you desire other filthy sacks of excrement.

62. Even the ground is considered impure when savory foods, such as camphor or boiled rice and condiments, are spat out or vomited from the mouth.

63. If you do not trust that this is filth even though it is obvious, look at other bodies too, repugnant and discarded in the charnel ground.

64. Knowing that great fear arises when the skin is torn off, how can you have attraction to that same thing again?

What shantideva is trying to do, like above, is strip the monks basic natural attraction to that which we desire, and see things in a different light. Being able to control the diet, so the monks could fast, and could overcome hunger pangs. Think about food when its rotting and when its vomited out. Its not so appealing anymore. It comes from the ground, vegetables, and goes back to the ground either with excrement or if vomited out. He's saying there's no end to that cycle. Then of course, its also about the flesh. And thats a tough one for any monk to tackle.

65. Although applied to the body, this fragrance is from sandalwood and not from anything else. Why are you attracted to someone by the fragrance that belongs to something else?

66. If attraction does not arise due to a naturally foul smell, is that not good? Why do people take pleasure in what is worthless and anoint it with fragrance?

67. If it is sandalwood that is sweet smelling, did it come from the body? Why is someone attracted to someone because of a fragrance that belongs to something else?

68. If the naked body, containing the slime of filth, is frightening in its natural condition, with its long hair and nails and stained yellowish teeth,

69. Why do you meticulously polish it like a weapon for suicide? This earth is crowded with the insane, so diligent in deluding themselves!

70. If you are repelled upon seeing just skeletons in a charnel ground, are you attracted to a village, which is a charnel ground crowded with animated skeletons?

71. Thus, that filth is not gained without a price. Due to accomplishing that end, one is afflicted with fatigue and tormented in hells.

When you think about it, in modern day, look at the fragrance business. Chanel no. 5. You can go out and spend some money and get stuff which will make you smell a certain way, and they will add all sorts of smelly stuff to fragrances to attract another sex. Pheromones, etc. A lot of people are very visual too - so beauty, and what attracts, and then add some pheromone smell, and you got a hooked monk who shantideva has to reprogram.

So shantideva is saying - you are grossed out my natural smells of the body, why are you still drawn to a body which under the flesh is a skeleton, and emits stinky smells for real. But you're smelling that sandalwood, being drawn to the stinky body and are falling for it.

But goes further, and explains to the monks, they're just as stinky too.

Their bodies are just as rotten and nasty.

So shantideva rants on, and then concludes the section with:

177. Therefore, free rein should not be given to the growth of bodily desires. It is truly good when one does not take something that ones wants.

178. This awful, impure form has its end in ashes and stillness, moved only by another. Why do I grasp onto it as mine?

179. Of what use is this contrivance to me, whether it is dead or alive? What difference is there between this and a clump of soil and the like? Alas, you are not eliminating the grasping onto the "I."

180. By favoring the body, one uselessly accumulates suffering. Of what use is anger or love to something equal to a piece of wood?

181. Whether it is nurtured by me, or eaten by vultures, it feels neither affection nor aversion, so why am I so fond of it?

182. If the body, which has no anger due to abuse, or satisfaction due to praise, is unconscious, then for whom am I exerting myself?

183. Those who like this body are said to be my friends. They all like their own bodies too, so why do I not like them?

184. Therefore, with indifference I have given up my body for the benefit of the world. Hence, although it has many faults, I keep it as an instrument for that task.

185. So enough of worldly conduct! Recalling the teaching on consciousness and warding off drowsiness and lethargy, I shall follow the wise.

186. Therefore, withdrawing the mind from evil ways, I shall always concentrate it on its own meditative object to eliminate obscurations.

Shantideva was basically, committed to himself and the monks losing the human form. Its not about looking in the mirror and saying "Im a piece of filth" or "Im a piece of shit," it looks like that, and this is probably why when I first found shantideva, I thought, he was totally wacked out of his mind. But Id still consider things, well, he's right. We will one day be rotting flesh, just a skeleton, cremation would make this nicer. Our bodies do decay, we get older, get wrinkles and lines. Its part of our impermanence. But if we wasted time, seeking out beauty which is impermament, we'd never have anything to take with us, which is timeless.

I know Michael was writing about Beauty - that we seek that when on the path - the real kind. But I think I said on email - we know to look 'within,' cause its there. Our mommas all said beauty is beneath the surface, not above it. We can easily be led to things which are a superficial beauty - we're fooled by simple smells, right? And visual. So when seeking the beloved, or the beauty which is timeless - and doesn't rot away, or isnt only linked to nothing but death and decay, we have to have our wits about us, and not be drawn in to illusions which only lead to a ... dead end.

Anyway, vows are difficult to keep. The Bodhisattvas work very hard, and yes, they renounce the world. I think when on the spiritual path, its difficult to renounce the world, and associates within it. But sometimes we have to do it, we will come to a point on the path, where fence sitting only bruises our ass more and more.

[Endless Whisper]

"Those desiring to escape from suffering hasten right toward suffering. With the very desire for happiness, out of delusion they destroy their own happiness as if it were an enemy." ~Shantideva

[Jaharkta]

What I wonder is, does renouncing the world really require such self-loathing? Can't being in the world-but-not-of-it be accomplished without all that preoccupation with morbidity?
~Rhetorical questions, perhaps, but this hatred of the flesh (and that is what it is, isn't it?) seems to amount to the same concept of innate uncleanliness, sin, etc., that is prevalent in Christianity too. Does this approach embrace life or hate it, I wonder?

If as above, so below, then I'm inclined to reverse that as well: as below, so above. How can one really rise from such a state of self-disgust?

Yes, it's true, death is foul, we are foul and disgusting creatures who soil our own nest .... is that all we do, though?

Just my pondering on this.

Is Pema this extreme? I usually have liked the stories and passages I've read by her.

Thanks for sharing this, EW!

[Endless Whisper]

What I wonder is, does renouncing the world really require such self-loathing? Can't being in the world-but-not-of-it be accomplished without all that preoccupation with morbidity?

~Rhetorical questions, perhaps, but this hatred of the flesh (and that is what it is, isn't it?) seems to amount to the same concept of innate uncleanliness, sin, etc., that is prevalent in Christianity too. Does this approach embrace life or hate it, I wonder?

I thot along the same lines when I read shantideva, cause he was so harsh about everything, and on the human body, even. I question that because, technically god gave us these bodies, are we supposed to see them as dirty?

But I think one of the things I like about shantideva's work, is it does grate on my nerves in this way. I have to accept shantideva was a product of his time. And monastery life had to be very strict. He was also real real harsh on women, and about a woman's body. Its almost like you can 'see' how he saw things, and some of the things he says are true. Like about how the flesh will decay, so why pursue what the flesh is hot for - its not thinking clearly! LOL, But also how it can have a lot to do with controlling us, or influencing mind and decisions. However, it still strikes and grates me, because then the other part of me says, is this not the solution, going on about the body, or is this even, another programming which now can divide soul from body too? But then again, I think of say, tibetan buddhists, and how when theyve died, there's been odd cases of how even their bodies didnt decay the same, or at the same rate, like they'd conquered something and were able to show a miracle with the body. Almost like, their spirit self changed their body, even if slightly, simply because of the path they chose to walk and so forth.

But self-loathing, I think people loathe themselves already, some just dont know it. Self-importance, for example, is self-loathing in disguise with a mask, deep down, that's all it is.

If as above, so below, then I'm inclined to reverse that as well: as below, so above. How can one really rise from such a state of self-disgust?

I dont think the monks were meant to tho. He was harsh to get them to renounce the world. But I think tho, shantidevas intentions were good. He was trying to save them, help them to achieve nirvana. But like any individual who writes on such things, Im thinking he'd found out how weak he could be, and how much a slave he could be to such things himself.

But he had suffered himself, and I think he didnt hate the world as much, but he did feel a divide with the world, undoubtedly, and there was some sadness from that. But more because the more he separated, longing for the solitude, the more he could feel a little lost

like here:

Staying in an empty shrine, at the foot of a tree, or in caves, when shall I go, free from concern, without looking back?

When shall I dwell in vast regions owned by none, in their natural state, taking my rest or wandering as I please?

When shall I live free from fear, without protecting my body, a clay bowl my only luxury, in a robe that thieves would not use?

Its like trying to find that perfect setting, so he could be free of the world, find his nirvana. He was smart enough to know he had to do it while living, in the world. But couldnt be a part of the world, to do it.

Its like he was afraid of the madness of the world. He wasnt afraid of other buddhas, but he felt a separation from others who were not, at least, on the buddha path, like here:


As the state of buddhahood depends equally
On sentient beings and on the buddhas,
How is it then that I do not respect
Sentient beings as I do the buddhas?

Now this is the funny thing about shantideva. He's the writer of the bodhisattva bow, which bodhisattvas are to serve, they put off their own freedom, ability to pass through the door, to help others. Yet shantideva can barely stand being around others who arent on the buddha path.

He knows all have buddha nature - he says 'sentient beings' so hes not just talking about people. Hes talking about all creatures. But the ones he knows havent 'flipped the switch' and have it 'on,' sts, he loathes them. But he questions why he does. Its his challenge to himself, when he wrote that, to figure it out, why.

But this is the other thing to understand as shantideva expressed this. This is something that all bodhisattvas, buddhists, enlightened folks, awake folks, will ask, whatever you want to call them, however you slice it. There's a point where people will hit this edge of the path, where they're intelligent enough to know, duality isn't the way, and an illusion; however, the us/them comes forth in the mind, 'awakened and asleep.' Instead of trying to hide it, mask it, shantideva is facing it, but also speaking it outloud, cause not one single monk isnt gonna hit that moment either.

Christians do the same things to themselves. You have saved, and not saved. And there's plenty of writing on it, renouncing the worldly things. However, the bodhisattva goes further. By questioning this, being honest. "Why do I not respect others?[/i] Its a challenge the monk must face - esp because of the five precepts. So he's not saying to be disrespectful, or that this is a good state of mind to have - but speaking out loud of it, because there's a point we're all gonna do that. And we have to overcome it, as well. In some way. Yet, cant always be fooled by it either.

Like say helping others - there is a limit of doing that in service. Cant help someone who doesnt want to help themself, and shouldnt help someone who wants to use you for all you're worth either.

Yes, it's true, death is foul, we are foul and disgusting creatures who soil our own nest .... is that all we do, though?

But thats the thing, the main thing he was trying to accomplish with the monks - was to see things as they are - impermanent. And stop them from pursuing things via desire, which wouldnt make them happy, and would only lead to more suffering.

But it is an interesting contrast from tantriks and those aghoris who go the opposite direction, thats another topic tho

Just my pondering on this.

Is Pema this extreme? I usually have liked the stories and passages I've read by her.

I wouldnt say shes as extreme, no. If you read her book on that, she does really give good insight on shantideva and integrate some of this more modernly, for folks living in this day. Yet she doesnt excuse him as much for being a product of his time. Because still, he did lead many monks to the dharma, so you have to give him some credit for that one.

Thanks for sharing this, EW!

Welcome - I figured shantideva could grate us a bit - I'll try to write some more. Try to not gross people out tho, lol