Note : In this discussion I focus on the practical application of cemetery contemplation.
MN 10 : 1.6. The charnel ground contemplations
Furthermore, a monastic, just as if they were to see a corpse thrown in the charnel ground—dead for one, two, or three days, bloated, livid, and festering—they’d compare it with their own body: ‘This body is also of that same nature, that same kind, and cannot go beyond this.
EĀ 12.1 : A rotten corpse
“Further, bhikkhus, the practitioner meditates on the corpse of one who has died one day ago or one week ago. It is distended, fetid, and impure. Then he meditates on his own body and sees that his own body is no different. This very body of his will not be able to escape death.
MN 119 : And again, monks, it is as if a monk might see, thrown aside in a cemetery a body that had been dead for one day or for two days or for three days, swollen, discoloured, decomposing; so he focuses on this body itself, thinking: ‘This body too is of a similar nature, a similar constitution, it has not got past that (state of things).
It is apparent that the lines in bold letters are common to all suttas which describes cemetery contemplation, which suggests that it is an important aspect of the practice. since in modern era corpses are not left open for decaying the practitioner will not able to observe a real corpse in decay. The modern scholars recommends imaginative reflection, which seems to be applicable.
they’d compare it with their own body:‘This body is also of that same nature, that same kind, and cannot go beyond this.
thus, it seems that the practitioner is suppose to compare his own body with the rotting corpse. but when it comes to imaginative reflection is comparing necessary? why can’t the practitioner imagine his own corpse in decay rather than comparing his body to another? is this not recommended ?