NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously.
A Buddhist Autopsy
By
Bhikkhu aggacitto
All scripture quoted is from the Pali Canon Tipataka.
I still remember now, it was a hot and humid day in August several year's ago and I was staying at a Dhammayuttika temple in Ubon Ratchathani, I was temple hopping at the time and was wondering weather or not I could go to the local hospital to witness an autopsy. It had been advised to me to do just that by a senior monk once. You see, back in the day so to speak, the Venerable Gotama (Buddha) would take his disciples for the “charnel ground contemplation” which would be a tour of the charnel grounds, a place where dead bodies were cremated. This was to show them the human body in various states of discomposure to give them an idea of just what it really was that they were lusting after and in other ways perhaps felt attached to. Today we don’t have many of such left, so the autopsy is often recommended. I first went to the private hospital and was told that well, basically they didn’t do too many of those there …it would sort of well… be bad for business. I was referred to the public hospital and was assured that I would find just what I needed there. I met someone at the public hospital and we both walked over to the private hospital together. Once there we met someone who told us that we might have to wait a day or two, but that we could arrange something by giving a phone number and that we would be called the day of the autopsy. My newfound friend gave his. On that memorable day he came to the temple and picked me up and we went on a drive with his motorcycle to the hospital, where we parked and went in.
Once there it didn’t take too long. The first body that was brought out was that of a young woman in her mid twenties, we were informed that she had died of a drug overdose and I could see that her body still seemed pretty much intact. As I have been taught by this world to associate certain body parts aesthetically with either pleasing or distasteful thoughts I viewed her body dead or not, accordingly. I still remember when the doctor put the scalpel in and cut from about her collar bone to her lower abdomen, and I can assure you all that when one breast went one way and the other breast went the other ALL illusions were OVER. I still remember when they had to get into her brain to take a tissue sample. An incision was made at the top of her head, and they literally pulled her face down and off of her face! The hair that she had on the top of her head was now below her chin. I could see behind that face that I’m sure others had fantasized about in erotic ways. Guess what? There was nothing very erotic about it at all. This was a good dose of vipassana (insight) for me. I still remember holding her heart and her lungs in my hands, knowing then why it was that I quit smoking. I remember feeling with a plastic surgical glove on her last meal in her intestines before she died.
When the female medical assistant left the room I looked at the doctor and asked him if I could ask him a question, and he said sure, go right ahead and so I did. I asked him just how was it that he could do this work all day , I mean put his hands into this for a living, and at the end of the day go home and SOMEHOW manage to achieve and maintain an erection while having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend or wife. He took a deep sigh,
And then told how it was done…
"Well he said you just have to put that knowledge a side”, he told me! O.K. so here he was telling me that in order for him to be able to have sexual intercourse with a woman he had to take the natural insight that his job afforded him and actually dumb him self down and make himself ignorant of it! I still remember at the time believing this to be QUITE the epiphany. There are those who REALLY don’t like this autopsy story. There are some women who REALLY get upset because of it. Why? We shall discuss it.
These are the same women who usually get upset when hearing that many a Buddhist monk will not touch a woman, and will tell you how “degrading” or “dehumanizing” such a lack of contact is. Lets now take a look at that now shall we?
Vinaya Pitaka Pattimokkha Sanghadisesa section.#2 Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.
There are some monks who adhere as well to the commentaries and will not touch a woman pretty much regardless of the circumstance. Even these will relent and do so if a woman is in danger whether they understand the contextual circumstance of why a commentary perhaps was written a certain way or not.(the commentary to Vinaya Pitaka Pattimokkha Sanghadisesa section.#2 and the concept of "anāmāsa" ( meaning those things which are to be construed as "untouchable").
What some people do not understand is that it’s one thing to posture and opinionate what you may or may not think acceptable for what ever reason, and quite another to go and live the life. If I’m at an event of some sort and find some of the women very flirtatious do I start shaking hands and giving hugs? Some women find a monks celibacy a challenge for their “sexy” selves and become fairly obnoxious. If I give to one then I will be accused of being “unfair” if I don’t do likewise for everyone. Should I tell a woman why I wish not to give her a hug and risk an argument because she then might feel embarrassed? Of course, women don’t have to put up with such silliness or if so can usually make a case for themselves that is more readily understood socially. There should certaintly be nothing wrong with a Buddhist monk using the doctrine of "anāmāsa" with discretion
as he or she might so choose. After all, we are all taught, if a woman doesn’t want to be touched…HANDS OFF! Is she being “demeaning” or “dehumanizing” to stand her ground ? I doubt it. There are some who might say, that’s not a good comparison she’s not doing it as a matter of general policy. Really? And what if she was? Any civilized man knows that that would be irrelevant. If she doesn’t wish to be touched…DON’T TOUCH!
Then there are of course my good Orthodox Jewish friends and the restrictions that the Torah places on men:
They are not to have sex with their wife while she is
menstruating, and for a specific period after the menstruation
ceases and the birth of a child. During the menstruation period
and similarly related prohibited periods, the wife is said to be
"niddah".
The Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) in Even haEzer Chapter 21 talks about the requirement of men being far from women lest men feel tempted to sin.
This even goes as far as to forbid gazing (not to be confused with
(“looking”) at women. This prohibition is also part of the idea of men
not touching women. There are those who hold that for men to touch
women (other than their wife at a permitted time) in any romantic way
("derech chibba") is a Toraitic prohibition, as all women must be
presumed to be in nidda (even when a woman is not having her period,
she is still in nidda if she has not been to the mikvah.).Given all of
this, the Talmud specifies a number of restrictions to prevent men
from transgressing:
1. A man and his woman are not allowed to touch, if they are neither
related nor married. This is because of the fear that touching
might lead to sexual transgressions. As an extension of this,
Orthodox men aren't supposed to sit next to women to which they
are neither related nor married.
2. A husband and wife may not touch if the woman is menstruating, or
for a specified period after menstruation/childbirth (the length
of the period varies depending on the sex of the child). This is
because they are forbidden to have sex during this time, and the
thought is that if the husband and wife touch in any way, they may
be too strongly tempted.
Hence, during "niddah" (the time of the women's menstrual flow),
additional restrictions are in place. These extra stringencies
apply because the couple is already intimate; presumably, it
doesn't take much to lead to "the act". Some of these these stringencies
include:
They cannot touch (even indirectly using an intermediate
object).
They cannot handle an object at the same time.
They cannot sit together on an object that moves (a swing
etc..)
They cannot eat from the same plate.
They cannot serve food to each other.
They must sleep in separate beds.
They may not engage in flirtatious behavior.
Although spouses can continue to dress attractively, they
cannot dress provocatively.
The only exception to these restrictions is pikuach nefesh (to
save a life).
Although it is true that the Tipataka commentaries mention not touching a woman even if it your mother and she is drowning, lets keep in mind that this is not the teaching of the Venerable Gotama nor is it the Tipataka proper.
Men and women shouldn't be mixed during prayer. This is because
the presence of the opposite sex is thought to be distracting
during prayer. Additionally, a person ought to pray from an
orientation of aloneness, as opposed to “completeness”.
I have recently heard that there's a Rabbi in Minnesota with 12 children. He's famous for telling women who offer their hand: "Don't shake my hand. The last woman who did that has 12 of my kids now!"
Would any woman go into a synagogue and tell them that they are being “offensive” or “dehumanizing” to women? Of course not! They would be laughed out of the synagogue and they know it!
They will however feel free to criticize the Buddhist monk and others who choose such a decision.
Of course the same people who are so “offended” at the prospect of a Buddhist monk not touching them are usually the same who REALLY don’t like the idea of…….
Monastic Celibacy
Pali Canon Tipataka - Vinaya Pitaka Patimokkha Parajika #1
“Should any bhikkhu — participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness — engage in sexual intercourse, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in affiliation.”
We are not the only celibate monastic order in this world.I have had both men and women tell me that celibacy is “dehumanizing” because it’s not the “natural” order. I believe that this deserves a discussion. You see, we are not as a species of inhabitants on this planet like a bunch of wild dogs sniffing for the hormone of the month. Students of anthropology know that we are a subspecies of homo sapien called “homo sapien sapien”. The difference? Homo sapien means man who thinks or ‘knows’ while the definition of Homo sapien sapien is man who thinks and knows he thinks. Yes my friend there is a big difference! In other words we don’t just have the ability to think but to think about thinking! Why that’s just smashing! Strike up the marching band! Now we should keep that in mind while we consider just what the most "natural" purpose for sexual intimacy/intercourse is. That would be what? Oh yes! That’s right! To further populate the species. Sure it feels good, but that’s a primal attempt at an assurance to further the species.
Now let’s consider the both of them together. If I choose to not want to have children or to be fruitful and multiply as some would say, because I believe that for one thing it is a distraction to the energy best applied to the spiritual endeavor, or for that matter, for whatever reason then the most “natural” course for me would to be celibate. Most people enjoy having sex simply for the fun of it while telling the rest of us supposedly just what the “natural” order is!
After all, the Buddha was not the only spiritual master on record to lead a celibate life. Jesus of Nazareth according to the Christian Bible was both celibate and a virgin all of his life. Do not the best teachers teach by example? If I were to suggest that Jesus should have married a “supportive” wife and had children and taken them along on his ministry that would justifiably be scoffed at! Although both Jesus and the Buddha knew what it was like to give their spiritual devotion a celibate life, to look at their teaching they both also knew that such a life would not be for everybody.
Now I ask you all, just why would anyone object to all three? What do these three have in common?
Answer: All three involve the rejection of the woman as an objectified sexual commodity and on their terms as many would prefer.
I have had some tell me about my autopsy story, “You’re not seeing the "real" woman/person beneath” Quite to the contrary! Once you see past the physical what is left is the spiritual or "real" person!
In other words there are some women who seem to simply have their feelings hurt because there’re not being drooled over or chased after. After all the fancy philosophizing and flowery words on the part of some this is what it largely comes down to.
Should Buddhist monks or any celibate monastic’s think of themselves as responsible for that?
Lets look at the Majjhima Nikaya # 72:
“ Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata ( Pali:“One who has gone forth” a term used to describe the Buddha) would describe him:
that the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed… not destined for future arising (samsara).
Freed from the classification of form (Samsara), ‘reappears’ does not apply. "does not reappear" doesn’t apply. "both does and does not reappear" doesn’t apply. "neither reappears nor does not reappear doesn’t apply."
Samsara :The process of becoming bound and restricted by a definable form by way of 1.Ignorance 2.greed and 3. illwill.
Nibbana:(Sanskrit: Nirvana) The cessation of that process.
There are some who are so tied into the idea of their “humanity” that they can’t spiritually see beyond that without taking some if not all of the characteristics of humanity with them!
Now let’s look at all three again.
The Autopsy helps us see past physical form and recognize a true spiritual self beyond gender or ethnicity or culture etc. while restrictions on physical contact and celibacy help us to prepare for spiritual liberation by helping us to apply a practical and applied approach of acknowledging the infinite spiritual potential beyond that which is merely physical.
There are those who would like to envision themselves someday as big strong masculine angels or petite female ones sitting on a cloud somewhere or in heaven or something and they certainly have every right to do so.
That does not mean that we have to!
I will end this with a few question's for those who subscribe to the typical monothestic version of an after life as well as perhaps for those other's who will understand the analogy and discussion regardless ... When you're basking in the glorious rays of heaven, will you still be engaging in sexual intercourse? If the purpose of such is the continuation of the species then why? To have fun? What could be more fun or satisfying than enjoying what you consider the total fulfillment of your spiritual life?
Although this may come as a surprise to many, one doesn't have to subscribe to the typical monothestic version of the "afterlife" to spiritually prepare one's self. Would you prepare to qualify for the Olympic game's by sitting around and eating ice cream all day for the fun of it? Spirituall speaking, someone who has committed themselves to the advancement of their spiritual life would certainly know better.
Bhikkhu aggacitto
If anyone would like a good source for Buddha dhamma information I would recommend accesstoinsight .org
or
dhammaprotector.blogspot.com
or
buddhadhammablog.blogspot.com
