Tantra: A Private Exchange (Part II)

[Guest guest]

FROM OMPREM TO DEVI_BHAKTA

 

OM Devi Bhakta

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my query.

 

I remember the court case you mention. As of now, I remain

unconvinced of the "I know it when I see it" approach. This seems to

me to leave definition entirely open to one's prejudices, biases,

aspirations, karmic load and degree of egoism and self-absorption. In

other words, there will be as many opinions as there are people with

an opinion. Not a very satisfactory situation from my perspective.

 

We both know that the justice system, and particularly judges, do not

operate necessarily with justice or even fairness, but more often pre-

judge a situation based on personal bias. ("Don't bother me with facts

or evidence, my mind is made up. Guilty as charged." One need look

no farther than Judge Judy for an example of a totally out-of-

control judge, who injects her personal beliefs and philosoohy of

life as 'evidence')

 

"Don't say it, do it." also seems to me to run a close second to the

above statement in terms of potentially egocentric definition.

 

But, I am always ready to be convinced and to learn, so I will seek

out a copy of the book, 'Tantra in Practice'.

 

I think that the two of us are agreed about Shaktism, probably agreed

about what Tantra is not, especially considering the examples that

you cited, but have yet to reach a meeting of the minds on what

Tantra is. That is where Tantra in Practice may be useful.

 

Allow me to just say that a definition of Tantra will probably not be

found 'in the realm of action', but rather in the motivations for

such action. I still am looking for a common thread. I hope the book

you recommend will provide that.

 

Once again, thanks the to-the-point response. I appreciate your

analysis and your sense of humour.

 

Highest regards

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

FROM DEVI_BHAKTA TO OMPREM

 

Namaskar OmPremji:

 

*** Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond

to my query.***

 

Thanks for taking the time and effort to read them. There's an old

Maine joke where an old woman asks a tour boat captain why he's

always talking to himself. He snaps back: "I like to talk to an

intelligent man, and I like to hear an intelligent man speak!"

 

It's a good example of the kind of delusion we all carry sometimes,

blabbing away about the things that matter to us -- even if we

suspect that no one else knows or cares what we're talking about. I

suppose it's even worse in my case, where I'm not even sure

how intelligent what I'm saying might be. I write what seems true to

me, and wait for people to either confirm or correct me. When I'm met

with ominous silence, I think "either I've hit the nail right on

the head -- or I've made a complete jackass of myself."

 

Perhaps that makes me a cynic -- indeed, like Diogenes of Sinope, I

think I'm *looking* for an intelligent person who will honestly hear

me out and tell me when I'm off-base, mistaken, or -- as I mentioned -

- self-deluded. As when we discussed Gurus, my point was not that I

did or didn't need one -- but that, not having one at the moment,

what am I supposed to do? How do I advance or prepare myself in

her/his absence? If the guru appears wehen the chela is ready -- how

do I go about "getting ready"?

 

I think, as our debate continued, it became clearer to you -- and to

me too, I admit -- that this (and not a general hostility toward the

Guru concept) was my real issue -- and at that, you offered a fairly

comprehensive answer. Like the Maine sea captain, I was extremely

pleased to be "talking to an intelligent man, and hearing an

intelligent man speak." Unlike the captain, however, I understood

that these were answers I could never have arrived at by talking to

myself. This is another question of the same kind.

 

*** As of now, I remain unconvinced of the "I know it when I see it"

approach. ***

 

Oh, me too, believe me. My point was made later in the letter that

Tantra, like "pornography," might require more than a quick and brief

definition. Or -- if the definition *is* brief, all of the terms

contained in it would have to be carefully defined. That's the case

with the introductory definition of "Tantra in Practice" -- as the

text weights each nuance of its meaning, the initially vapid

definition takes on a new usefulness as a matrix within with to

understand the various concrete examples offered. Now, I am not

saying "Tantra is Practice" is *the* answer, or a flawless

presentation -- anymore than I think Woodroffe is *the* answer or

flawless. But I do think that both are far-better-than-average

signposts along the path.

 

*** this seems to me to leave definition entirely open to one's

prejudices, biases, aspirations, karmic load and degree of egoism and

self-absorption. ***

 

Yes! That was what I was driving at when i mentioned the sea captain

joke. If I state my views strongly, I often think, "Well,

don't I sound like a pompous ass." ... But in fact (unlike poor Judge

Judy ;-)) I'm perfectly open to the idea that *I'm* wrong, that my

mind is simply too closed to comprehend the truth. But, at this point

is my evolution, I need some convincing. I am willing to change my

opinion -- but not because somebody simply says I'm wrong. They also

need to say *why* I'm wrong.

 

*** "Don't say it, do it." also seems to me to run a close second to

the above statement in terms of potentially egocentric

definition. ... a definition of Tantra will probably not be

found 'in the realm of action', but rather in the motivations for

such action. ****

 

Yes, I already like that formulation better than my own. Motivation

is definitely a factor -- but again, it might be getting too

specific. For example, there are low people, as you know, who abuse

the power of Tantra as a kind of black magic. Their motivation is

self-aggrandizement and/or control over (including the ability to

harm) others. It's not Shaktism; it's not Hinduism -- but it is still

undoubtedly Tantra, which tends to be a judgment-neutral phenomenon.

The uses it is turned to are only as elevated as the people who

use it. Which is another reason why I said it is a technique and not

a philosophy. You don't have to be at all sattvic to make it work

(although non-sattvic uses necessarily exact a high karmic price).

 

*** I think that the two of us are agreed about Shaktism, probably

agreed about what Tantra is not ***

 

Yes, I agree. I'm glad to see that you understood my meaning in

saying that -- as it seemed to me -- your initial definitions of

Tantra seemed more like definitions of Shaktism. I simply wanted to

note that, although Shaktism often takes a Tantric form, it need

not do so. The Devi Gita of the Devi Bhagavata Purana,

while acknowledging Tantric techniques (Kundalini Yoga, etc.) as a

legitimate path to Devi, explicitly says that simple Bhakti

techniques are a *better* way to Devi.

 

Okay, I think I've gone on long enough. It was a pleasure to receive

your letter. As I said, I'd be happy to take the conversation into

the forum, or continue in private, as you prefer.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

DB