Opinion of this passage from the Vimalakirti Sutra

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

At that time, out of this very skill in liberative technique, Vimalakirti manifested himself as if sick. To inquire after his health, the king, the officials, the lords, the youths, the aristocrats, the householders, the businessmen, the townfolk, the countryfolk, and thousands of other living beings came forth from the great city of Vaisali and called on the invalid. When they arrived, Vimalakirti taught them the Dharma, beginning his discourse from the actuality of the four main elements:

"Friends, this body is so impermanent, fragile, unworthy of confidence, and feeble. It is so insubstantial, perishable, short-lived, painful, filled with diseases, and subject to changes. Thus, my friends, as this body is only a vessel of many sicknesses, wise men do not rely on it. This body is like a ball of foam, unable to bear any pressure. It is like a water bubble, not remaining very long. It is like a mirage, born from the appetites of the passions. It is like the trunk of the plantain tree, having no core. Alas! This body is like a machine, a nexus of bones and tendons. It is like a magical illusion, consisting of falsifications. It is like a dream, being an unreal vision. It is like a reflection, being the image of former actions. It is like an echo, being dependent on conditioning. It is like a cloud, being characterized by turbulence and dissolution. It is like a flash of lightning, being unstable, and decaying every moment. The body is ownerless, being the product of a variety of conditions.

"This body is inert, like the earth; selfless, like water; lifeless, like fire; impersonal, like the wind; and nonsubstantial, like space. This body is unreal, being a collocation of the four main elements. It is void, not existing as self or as self-possessed. It is inanimate, being like grass, trees, walls, clods of earth, and hallucinations. It is insensate, being driven like a windmill. It is filthy, being an agglomeration of pus and excrement. It is false, being fated to be broken and destroyed, in spite of being anointed and massaged. It is afflicted by the four hundred and four diseases. It is like an ancient well, constantly overwhelmed by old age. Its duration is never certain - certain only is its end in death. This body is a combination of aggregates, elements, and sense-media, which are comparable to murderers, poisonous snakes, and an empty town, respectively. Therefore, you should be revulsed by such a body. You should despair of it and should arouse your admiration for the body of the Tathagata.

"Friends, the body of a Tathagata is the body of Dharma, born of gnosis. The body of a Tathagata is born of the stores of merit and wisdom. It is born of morality, of meditation, of wisdom, of the liberations, and of the knowledge and vision of liberation. It is born of love, compassion, joy, and impartiality. It is born of charity, discipline, and self-control. It is born of the path of ten virtues. It is born of patience and gentleness. It is born of the roots of virtue planted by solid efforts. It is born of the concentrations, the liberations, the meditations, and the absorptions. It is born of learning, wisdom, and liberative technique. It is born of the thirty-seven aids to enlightenment. It is born of mental quiescence and transcendental analysis. It is born of the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the eighteen special qualities. It is born of all the transcendences. It is born from sciences and superknowledges. It is born of the abandonment of all evil qualities, and of the collection of all good qualities. It is born of truth. It is born of reality. It is born of conscious awareness.

"Friends, the body of a Tathagata is born of innumerable good works. Toward such a body you should turn your aspirations, and, in order to eliminate the sicknesses of the passions of all living beings, you should conceive the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment."

While the Licchavi Vimalakirti thus taught the Dharma to those who had come to inquire about his sickness, many hundreds of thousands of living beings conceived the spirit of unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.

I keep coming back to this passage in debates over the concept of bodily autonomy. Oftentimes it's said that ~organized religion~ (or just Christianity) denies the existence of such a thing, probably in part because "bodily autonomy" is sometimes used as a totum pro parte for the (actual or putative) right to abortion. I don't find that to be true of "religion" in general, but here's a passage from a Buddhist scripture that specifically refutes the idea of bodily autonomy, in at times shockingly modern terms.

Personally, I love this passage's poetic and rhetorical language, but I can't in good conscience agree with its anthropology. The body matters, and it's a key part of the human person.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is kind of terrifying, and borders on ~excessive hyperbole* tbh (all covered under poetic license, of course!) but it definitely contains a kernel of truth.

I do agree that the body matters though, because it is the vehicle for our sensory perceptions, and in turn our sensory perceptions are what shapes our immaterial self.

[afleitch]

What a sensual passage against sensuality.

Bodily autonomy is my right to lie down with my husband. It's my right not to. It's the basis of consent over coercion. There are more vices and more moral wrongs committed if bodily autonomy is refuted and either granted to others or others claiming stewardship on behalf of god or authority or morality. (see women passim) I've always found arguments against that somewhat concerning. And I am not by any stretch a libertarian.

Certainly faith can be exercised with an ascetism based on a suspicion (or down right punishment) of the body, but on the one hand you have St Francis and on the other hand Song of Songs.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As a physicalist I don't think this mind/body dualism is accurate.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What a sensual passage against sensuality.

It really is, isn't it? I first encountered the Vimalakirti Sutra in 2012, at which point I was even more afraid of sex and distrustful of my own body than I am now, even though (or perhaps because) I wasn't as religious. It's haunted me ever since for exactly that reason. And I think the same could be said of a lot of the Franciscan ascetic material you allude to at the end of your post.

As a physicalist I don't think this mind/body dualism is accurate.

You're correct to identify a dualism here but you're misunderstanding what it is. The "body of the Tathagata" is not the mind and it certainly isn't an individual soul/atman; instead, it's the cosmic "dharma body" of a transcendent buddha, which in Theravada is identified with the dharma in the sense of the body of Buddhist teachings, and in Mahayana is a polysemous term referring to the Buddhist teachings, the collected body of experiences (also called dharma) of a buddha, and the "body" of reality itself (sunyata).

[Mopsus]

As a physicalist I don't think this mind/body dualism is accurate.

You're correct to identify a dualism here but you're misunderstanding what it is. The "body of the Tathagata" is not the mind and it certainly isn't an individual soul/atman; instead, it's the cosmic "dharma body" of a transcendent buddha, which in Theravada is identified with the dharma in the sense of the body of Buddhist teachings, and in Mahayana is a polysemous term referring to the Buddhist teachings, the collected body of experiences (also called dharma) of a buddha, and the "body" of reality itself (sunyata).

So would it be accurate to call this body/Body dualism? With the first term being the egoistic body which leads to smallness and death, and the second term being the enlightened Body which is the source of wisdom and life?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

As a physicalist I don't think this mind/body dualism is accurate.

You're correct to identify a dualism here but you're misunderstanding what it is. The "body of the Tathagata" is not the mind and it certainly isn't an individual soul/atman; instead, it's the cosmic "dharma body" of a transcendent buddha, which in Theravada is identified with the dharma in the sense of the body of Buddhist teachings, and in Mahayana is a polysemous term referring to the Buddhist teachings, the collected body of experiences (also called dharma) of a buddha, and the "body" of reality itself (sunyata).

So would it be accurate to call this body/Body dualism? With the first term being the egoistic body which leads to smallness and death, and the second term being the enlightened Body which is the source of wisdom and life?

Sort of. It's definitely more accurate than calling it mind/body dualism.