Tantra: A Private Exchange (Part I)

[Guest guest]

With OmPrem's kind permission, I am reposting a private exchange we

had last week, in hopes that other members might care to contribute

to the discussion:

 

FROM OMPREM TO DEVI_BHAKTA

 

While we agree on the definiton of 'Shaktism', it is clear that you

do not want to continue this discussion of a definition of 'Tantra'

in the club forum.

 

My point all along has been that if a term, such as Tantra, applies

to an earthly body of knowledge and practice and yet has no

definition, in what sense can that term be said to have a meaning or

a basis for its usage.

 

The definitions that your post provided were, as we agreed,

meanlingless.

 

It seems to me that a person could go one step farther and say that

the term, Tantra, is itself meaningless.

 

So, why then is it used. Either 'Tantra' must have a meaning

and 'Tantric' practices have something in common or, 'Tantra' has no

meaning and is being used as a justification for whatever a person

wishes to do and can persuade others to do. (There is nothing like

a title to justify otherwise unjustifiable actions - a suitable

attitude in a Kali Yuga).

 

My own view, admittedly based on knowledge of only some 'Tantric'

practices, is that what is common is a move away from the rigid

asceticism and disdain for the human body that seems to characterize

many other forms of practice. In 'Tantra', this reaction leads to

an exultation of the human body and human emotions and a resultant

exultation with nature in all of its variety and creativity. This

seems to be a reaction against the other paths that see all as Maya

and not deserving of real consideration. If so, it might also

a misunderstanding of Maya. In this scenario, 'Tantra' would be a

suitable practice for a Kali Yuga just as the 'Me too.' attitude is

appropriate to a Kali Yuga.

 

As for those, so-called 'Tantric' practices that do not fit this

model, perhaps they are only calling themselves 'Tantric' out of

ignorance or in a bid for respectablitily.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

FROM DEVI_BHAKTA TO OMPREM

 

*** it is clear that you do not want to continue this discussion of a

definition of 'Tantra' in the club forum. ***

 

That's not necessarily true. I wouldn't mind, if you think it's

appropriate. I've learned the hard way that many people (present

company excluded, of course ;-)) do not read what I actually write,

but rather respond to what they *think* I said, regardless of what I

actually said.

 

That's particularly dangerous in discussing Tantra. There is a reason

why that "real thing" is so hidden --and this is precisely it: People

find in Tantra justification for whatever it is they want to do. By

calling it Tantra, as you suggest, they give themselves an air of

mystery and exoticism. Tantra is a hard path; but in the popular

imagination it's easy: All the "fun" stuff most religions tell you to

avoid? Hey presto! Suddenly it's all "spiritual" stuff! Have

a ball, and find God/dess as a bonus!

 

*** if a term, such as Tantra, applies to an earthly body of

knowledge and practice and yet has no definition, in what sense can

that term be said to have a meaning or a basis for its usage. It

seems to me that ... the term, Tantra, is itself meaningless.

So, why then is it used? ***

 

Habit, I think. Many commentators -- yes, Woodroffe included -- have

observed that the term "Tantra" is at best imprecise and at worst

meaningless. Woodroffe rarely uses the term, preferring to say "the

Agama" in describing doctrines that are usually considered Tantric.

But he noted 75 years ago that, since the word (and an assumed

definition) had become part of the public vocabulary, it could not be

honestly avoided. It's a buzzword, yes; but it's one that now

must be dealt with on its own terms. But if I started talking

about "the Agama" in the Group, at least 75 percent of the members

would not have the slightest idea that I was referring to what

they think of as Tantra.

 

*** 'Tantra' must have a meaning ... ***

 

It does. But, as we discussed, it is not a meaning that can be

meaningfully summarized in a pat, brief definition.

 

Let me give you an example. There have been several cases in the U.S.

Courts over the meaning of pornography -- usually arising in the

context of modern art. A recent, famous case was NYC Mayor Rudy

Giulliani threatening to cut off public funding to a show that

contained works he considered "obscene." In fact, nobody can deny

that there is a tangible difference between contemplating a Picasso

nude and ogling a Playboy centerfold. But what makes one "art"

and the other "pornography"?

 

That indefinable essence, upon reaching the U.S. Supreme Court,

yielded Justice Potter Stewart's infamous non-reply: "I shall not

today attempt to further define [pornography]... but I know it when I

see it." (Jacobellis vs. Ohio, June 22, 1964).

 

Tantra is the same. I know it when I see it. And I *think* I know it

when I don't. For example, not a half-hour ago I picked up a

free "New Age" magazine on the muggy streets of Boston, and found an

article by a woman who is a credentialed psychotherapist and for

the past 17 years head of something called the Tantra Institute. She

begins her lengthy presentation with this choice bit of hogwash:

 

"Authentic Tantra is a yogic spiritual journey that follows the path

of ecstasy and teaches us to embrace our sexual experiences, deepen

our relationships and embrace physical pleasure as an aspect and

expression of our spiritual self."

 

Isn't that just wonderful? Pay her the right fee and you can

experience it too. I'm especially impressed that she has the bottle

to call it not just "Tantra," but "authentic" Tantra. But you know?

She's telling people what they already believe, and -- more

importantly -- what they really want to hear. If we protest, "Wait.

that's not right! It's actually a lot of hard work! It's religious

discipline, not an orgy," then we are perceived as little more than

po-faced naysayers.

 

In fact, in the wake of one of our club discussions, I had one

member, a self-styled "Tantric Guru" -- a pretty young woman from

Russia who's made a tidy profit offering Tantric seminars in New York

City -- demonstratively quit the club. When she got our

automatic "please reconsider" notice, she fired back that she

was "sick" of our "stupid, boring" discussions of Tantra. Sorry, Guru!

 

*** My own view, admittedly based on knowledge of only some 'Tantric'

practices, is that ... ***

 

Your view is reasonable enough, especially from the modern Hindu

perspective on Tantra. But let me recommend that you read the book I

mentioned, "Tantra in Practice," to see what I'm talking about as

regards the "real" Tantra.

 

To return to my original comparison, a federal judge may well admit

defeat when asked to reduce a complicated issue (pornograhy vis a vis

art) to a pithy, useful definition. But a scholar and philosopher,

given five hundred pages or so, could probably enable readers to

accurately assess and finesse that matter in their minds -- to "feel"

the truth that is so resistant to easy definition.

 

Likewise, a broad survey of Tantra -- as it is practiced -- will

bring the issue to life for you. We often note the difference between

intellectually understanding Divine Unity and actually experiencing

it to some degree. Well Tantra, you will discover, lies almost

entirely in the realm of action, not words or discussion -- part of

the reason it is so impossible to define is that it resists analysis

like Teflon resists water. It is resolutely a matter of "Don't say

it, do it."

 

At least that's my experience. And so, whenever I get into a debate

about Tantra, I am reminded once again of the futility of discussing

it -- the absurdity. ... certain concepts are best confined to

private discussion, if it is discussed at all.

 

BTW, if you're interested in learning more about the book I

mentioned, see:

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691057788/qid=1025723682/sr=8-

1/ref=sr_8_1/102-8657936-4427366

 

Its table of contents can be seen here:

 

http://www.indiaclub.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=8296

 

Hope that wasn't too long and drawn-out. I just wanted you to

understand where I'm coming from on this.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

DB