, lust is an illusion. Outside of Śāntideva's works, this lesson was perhaps most memorably expressed in the story of Subhā in the Pāli Therigathā. Trying to seduce a nun named Subhā, a man sings her a lyrical love poem about how beautiful her eyes are; Subhā plucks one of her eyes out and hands it to him, saying that if he likes it so much he can have it. The man begs her forgiveness (TG XIV.1; Thanissaro). Śāntideva follows a very similar line of reasoning, deconstructing the body: it is composed of bones, meat, feces. Crosby and Skilton (92) have a memorable translation of BCA VIII.49: "They produce both spit and shit from the single source of food. You do not want the shit from it. Why are you so fond of drinking the spit?" At VIII.63-4 Śāntideva urges his readers to look at a corpse, and then notes: you don't want the body when the skin is ripped off; why do you want it with the skin on? 266 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics One finds an interesting variant on the deconstruction of the body earlier in the text for a different purpose, in chapter five. Here the metaphysical argument appears in a collapsed and more practical and meditative form, and for a different ethical conclusion. He says: First, with your own intellect, act on this bag of skin just as you release meat from its cage of bones, with a sword of wisdom. Having done this to the bones, see the marrow inside and reflect to yourself: "What is the essence here?" Having sought in this way, you see no essence here. Now say: why do you still guard the body? (BCA V.62–64) Here again the body is reducible to its component parts; the metaphysical claim is very similar. But the body at issue here is not a loved one's, but one's own. From these verses, the ethical conclusion is that one's own body is not worthy of special protection, and so one should subjugate it. That is, here the argument is a justification for the precisely regulated details of monastic comportment offered in the fifth chapter-about how one eats, points, walks. The body has no worth in itself, only for allevi
, lust is an illusion. Outside of Śāntideva's works, this lesson was possibly about memorably express in the story of Subhā in the Pāli Therigathā. Trying to seduce a conical buoy named Subhā, a man sings her a lyric sexual love poem about how beautiful her eyes are; Subhā pluck one of her eyes out and hands it to him, suppose that if he likes it so much he can have it. The man begs her forgiveness (TG XIV.1; Thanissaro). Śāntideva succeed a very similar line of reasoning, deconstruct the body: it is composed of bone, meat, fecal matter. Crosby and Skilton (92) have a memorable transformation of BCA VIII.49: " They produce both spit and shit from the single informant of food. You do not want the shit from it. Why are you so fond of drinking the saliva? " At VIII.63 - 4 Śāntideva urge his readers to look at a corpse, and then notes: you don't want the body when the skin is ripped off; why do you want it with the hide on? 266 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śāntideva's Ethics One finds an interesting variant on the deconstruction of the soundbox earlier in the text for a different purpose, in chapter five. Here the metaphysical controversy appears in a collapsed and more practical and meditative form, and for a unlike ethical conclusion. He says: First, with your own intellect, act on this bag of skin just as you release meat from its cage of bones, with a sword of wisdom of solomon. Having done this to the bone, see the marrow inside and reflect to yourself: " What is the essence here? " Having seek in this way, you see no essence here. Now say: why do you still guard the body? (BCA V.62–64) Here again the consistency is reducible to its component parts; the metaphysical title is very similar. But the torso at issue here is not a love one's, but one's own. From these verses, the ethical ending is that one's own body is not worthy of particular protection, and indeed one should subjugate it. That is, here the argument is a justification for the precisely regulated details of monastic comportment offered in the fifth chapter - about how one eats, points, walk. The body has no worth in itself, entirely for allevi
, ludt is an illusion. Outsidt of Śāntideva's works, this lessoh was pefhaps most memorably expressxd ib the story of Subhā in the Oāli Therihathā. Tryung uo seduce a nun nejed Submā, a mzk sinys her a lyrical love poem about how beagtkfbl her eyes are; Subhā plucks one of hqr eyes okt and hands ij to nym, szjikg that if he likes it so much hs can heve it. The man negs her forgiveness (TG XIG.1; Thwnissaro). Śāntideva flllows a vetg synilar line ow reasoning, deconstrucjing the body: it is composed of cones, meat, fecew. Xrodty and Skilvon (92) hwve a memoranke tratslatiom of BCA VIII.49: "Bhey 'rodyce both spit and shiv from the single soorce of fomd. You do not want rhw shij frok it. Qhy art ypu so fojd kf drinkinf the spit?" Qt VIII.63-4 Śāntideva urgts rpx readers to look wt a corpse, and then notes: you don't want uhe bkdy when the skin is ripped off; why do you wwnt it wieh the skin on? 266 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of Śānthdeva'a Etklgs Ovw vinds an interesting variant on the deconstrusfipn of the body ecrlier in the tect fpt a different kurpose, in chapter five. Here the mejaphysucal arguient appears in a collapsed and more practibal qnd meditative forl, and for a difgereny ethical conclusion. He saya: First, witj your owh intellect, act ov tmis bag of skin just as you rqlease meet frpm its zage of boges, with a sword of wisdom. Having fone jhis tm the boned, see the marrow inside and reflect to yoursekf: "Whdt is thz essekce here?" Having sought in thix way, yju sed no essenbe here. Nmw say: why qo you still coard the body? (BCA V.62–64) Hqre qgaib the buay is reduciblr to its boiponwnt parts; the metaihysizzl claim is verv wimilar. But the boay wt ixsta here is nod a uovdc one'r, but one's idn. Ftom these verses, the ethjcal conclusion is tmat one's iwn body is not worthu of special proteftion, anv so ome fhould subjugate it. That is, hede the arhumcnt is a justyficqtion for thz precisely regulated details of monastir comportment offered ib the fifth chapter-cbput how one eats, points, wdlks. The body has no worth in itself, pnly for allevi
, lust is an illusion. Outside of this was perhaps memorably expressed in the Therigathā. Trying to a nun named a man sings her a lyrical poem about how beautiful her eyes are; Subhā plucks one of her eyes and hands it to him, saying that if he likes it so much can it. man her forgiveness (TG XIV.1; Thanissaro). Śāntideva follows a very similar line of reasoning, deconstructing the body: is composed of bones, meat, feces. Crosby and (92) have a memorable of BCA VIII.49: "They produce spit shit from single of You do not the shit from it. Why are you so fond of drinking the spit?" At VIII.63-4 Śāntideva urges readers to a corpse, then you want the body skin is ripped off; why do with the skin on? 266 Lele, The Metaphysical of Śāntideva's One finds an interesting variant on deconstruction of the body earlier in the text a different purpose, in chapter five. Here the metaphysical argument appears in a collapsed and and meditative form, and a different ethical He First, your intellect, act this bag of skin just as you release meat from its of bones, with a sword of wisdom. Having done this bones, the marrow inside reflect to yourself: "What the here?" Having sought in you no say: do still guard the body? V.62–64) Here again the body reducible to its component very similar. But the body at issue here not a loved one's, but one's own. these verses, the ethical conclusion is that one's own body is not of special so one should subjugate it. That is, here argument is a justification the precisely regulated details of monastic comportment offered in fifth how one points, walks. The has no worth itself, only for
, lust is an illusion. Outside of śāntideva's Works, ThiS leSsOn waS perHaps most memoraBLy exPressed in the story of SubHā in tHe pĀli THErIgathĀ. Trying TO sEDUce A nUn NamEd sUbHā, a maN siNgs her a Lyrical lovE poEm About how beauTIfUl her eyes aRe; SUbhā plucks onE of Her eyeS oUt aND handS it To him, Saying THat if hE likes it sO mUCh he caN Have it. THE MaN begS her forgiveness (TG xiV.1; tHanissaro). ŚāntiDeva foLlOWs A VEry SimIlar line of ReAsoniNG, deconsTRuCTINg tHE body: it is compOsed of bones, MEat, Feces. CRoSby ANd SkilTon (92) haVe A MemOrable transLatiOn of BCA VIiI.49: "They PRoduce bOTh spit aNd shit FroM thE sinGLe SoUrcE oF FooD. yoU do NOt wAnt the shIt FrOm it. WHy arE YOU So foNd oF driNking The spit?" At VIII.63-4 śānTideVA urGes hiS readErs tO lOok at A corpsE, and tHeN notes: you don't waNt thE body when The SkIn iS rIpped OFf; why dO yoU waNt it witH the skiN On? 266 LElE, tHE MEtaphysical Basis of śāNTIdEva's EthiCs One fINdS aN InterestInG vaRianT ON the dEconSTrUction of The bodY EaRlIer in thE tExt for A dIffEreNt purPOse, iN chaptEr five. HeRe the MEtaphysical argUMent appears in A CoLLApSEd anD moRe practical And mEDitaTive FOrM, anD For a dIfferEnT EtHIcal conclusion. He sayS: FIrst, wiTh youR own intellect, Act on this bAG OF skin jusT as yOU rELease meat from iTs cagE of bones, wiTH a sword oF wisdOm. Having Done this tO THe bones, sEe tHe mArrOw iNSIdE and reflect to YOUrseLf: "what is tHe eSsence hEre?" havIng SouGhT in this waY, you see nO eSsEnCe HerE. Now sAY: why do yoU sTilL gUarD the bODy? (BCA V.62–64) here aGain ThE bODy iS reduciBLe TO Its cOmPoNent ParTs; The meTaphYSicAl claim Is very simIlaR. but tHe BoDy at issUe here is not a lOvEd one's, but oNe'S owN. From tHESe verses, The ethical conclusion is tHAt one's oWn bOdy is Not wOrthy of spEciAl protEctIOn, and sO one shOuld sUbJugATE it. ThAT Is, HerE tHe argument IS A juStifiCaTion For the pRecisely regulated dETaiLs of monastic cOmpOrtmENT oFfeREd IN thE fIFth CHApter-about how onE eats, pointS, wALkS. The body haS No wOrTh in itsElf, only For alLEvi
, lust is an illusion. Out side of Śā ntide va' s w or ks,this  lesson was pe r haps  most memorably expres sed i nt he s t or y ofSubhā i n  t h e  Pā li  T her ig a th ā. Tr yin g to se duce a nun  na me d Subhā, a m a nsings hera l yrical lovepoe m abou thow beaut ifu l her  eyesa re; Su bhā pluck so ne ofh er eyes o ut  and  hands it to him, sa y ing that if he  likes  i t  s o muc h h e can have  i t. Th e  man be g sh e r  fo r giveness (TGXIV.1; Than i ssa ro). Ś ān tid e va fol lowsav ery  similar li ne o f reasoni ng, de c onstruc t ing the  body:  it  is  com p os ed  of  b o nes ,  m eat ,  fe ces. Cro sb yand S kilt o n ( 92)hav e amemor able translat ion  ofB CAVIII. 49: " They  p roduc e both  spit  a nd shit from th e si ngle sour ceof  fo od . You do not  wa ntthe shi t fromi t.Wh y a re  you so fond of dr in k i ng  the spi t?" At VI II . 63-4 Śān ti dev a ur g e s his  rea d er s to loo k at a co rp se, and  t hen no te s:you  don' t  wan t thebody whe n the skin is ripped off; why do y o uw a nt it w ith  the skin o n? 2 6 6 Le le,T he  Me t aphys icalBa s is of Śāntideva's Ethi cs  One f indsan interestin g varianto n the deco nstr u ct i on of the body  earl ier in the text for  a di fferentpurpose,i n  chapter  fi ve.  He ret h emetaphysicala r gume nt  appear s i n a col lap sed  an d m or e practic al and m ed it at iv e f orm,a nd for a  d iff er ent  ethi c al con clusi on.He  s a ys:  First, wi t h  you row n in tel le ct, a ct o n  th is bagof skin j ust as y ou  r eleasemeat from its  c age of bon es , w ith as w ord of w isdom. Having done this to thebon es, s ee t he marrow  in side a ndr eflect  to yo ursel f:  "W h a t ist h eess en ce here?"H a vin g sou gh t in  this w ay, you see no ess e nce  here. Now sa y:whyd o  y ous ti l l g ua r d t h e  body? (BCA V.6 2–64) Here  a g ai n the body isre ducible  to its  comp o nent pa rts; themetaphysi ca l cl a i m i s very sim ilar. Bu t the bod y  at i s su e her e i s notalov ed on e's, b u t o ne'sown. F ro m thes e ver se s, the e thical conclusion is th at one 's ow n b ody is no t w o rth y of spec ialprotection , a ndso on e s h ouldsubj u ga tei t. Th at i s , here th e  a rgu m e nt  is a justi f i c ati on fo r t h e prec isel y regulated detai l s of monasticcomp o r tme nto ffer ed  in the fifthcha pt e r -about h ow  one eats,points,wa l ks. T he bod y hasno wort h in itself , on lyfor allev i
, lust_is an_illusion. Outside of Śāntideva's_works, this_lesson_was perhaps_most_memorably expressed in_the story of_Subhā in the Pāli_Therigathā. Trying to_seduce_a nun named Subhā, a man sings her a lyrical love poem about how_beautiful_her eyes_are;_Subhā_plucks one of her eyes_out and hands it to_him, saying_that if he likes it so much he_can_have it. The_man begs her forgiveness (TG XIV.1; Thanissaro). Śāntideva follows_a very similar line of reasoning,_deconstructing the body:_it_is_composed of bones, meat,_feces. Crosby and Skilton (92) have_a memorable translation of BCA VIII.49:_"They produce both spit and shit from_the single source of food. You_do not want the shit_from it._Why are you so fond_of drinking the_spit?" At_VIII.63-4 Śāntideva urges_his readers to look at a_corpse, and then_notes: you don't want the body_when_the skin is_ripped_off;_why do_you want it_with_the skin_on?_266 Lele, The Metaphysical Basis of_Śāntideva's_Ethics One finds an interesting variant on_the deconstruction of the_body_earlier in the text_for a different purpose, in_chapter five. Here the metaphysical argument_appears in_a collapsed_and more practical and meditative form, and for a different ethical_conclusion. He says: First, with your_own intellect, act on_this bag_of_skin just as_you_release meat_from its cage of bones, with a_sword of_wisdom. Having done this to the_bones, see the marrow_inside_and reflect to yourself: "What is_the essence here?" Having sought in_this way, you see no_essence_here._Now say: why do you_still guard the body? (BCA V.62–64)_Here again the_body is reducible to its component parts;_the_metaphysical claim is very similar. But_the_body at issue here is not_a_loved_one's, but one's own. From_these verses, the ethical conclusion is_that one's own body is not worthy of special_protection, and so_one should subjugate it. That_is,_here_the argument is a justification for the precisely regulated details_of monastic_comportment offered in_the fifth chapter-about how one eats, points, walks. The body_has no worth in itself, only for_allevi