Tantra and Human Sexuality

[Guest guest]

I say I believe I know the heart of Tantra because my husband of 14

years was a paranoid schizophrenic ( he is still my husband, but he no longer

hears voices or has delusion for the past 7 years now ).

When I say I know the heart of Tantra ( or suspect I do ) it is not

because I mean to say we have a great sex life ...

But it really, if I tried to talk about it, it would end up sounding

pornographic, but it wouldn't be so much about sex really, at all ...

;-)

[Guest guest]

A member recently wrote and asked me about the relationship between

Tantra and alternative (gay, lesbian) forms of sexuality. As I am

heterosexual by preference, I might not have been the ideal person to

ask. So I wanted to post my reaction in case any other members can

shed additional light on this topic. To summarize, my answer was

basically that a devotee's sexual orientation -- heterosexual or

otherwise -- simply does not matter. I began my explanation with a

caveat about avoiding the temptation to monkey around with the

received doctrine of the Tantras to make them fit one's social,

sexual and political views:

 

"My only advice would be to heed the words of Picasso, who once said

something to the effect, "I consider myself free to smash the

conventions of Western art only because I have thoroughly mastered

the conventions of Western art." Because Picasso could paint a

portrait as realistic as a Rembrandt; he didn't choose to distort and

cube human bodies in his later work because didn't know how to paint

properly, but because he'd "been there, done that" with traditional

Western art, and now felt compelled to go somewhere new. The problem

today -- in both Indian and the West -- is that many people don't

want to invest the kind of time and effort to learn the real thing,

which is not especially easy, accessible, or 'sexy.' Instead, the

term "Tantra" is being used to sell a lot of easy, sex-centered,

made-for-Western-consumption, New Age schemes and belief systems."

 

My correspondent, as it turns out, was offended by this statement,

and snapped back, "It almost sounds like you are saying a person

(me?) should be a great heterosexual first, before trying to change

the rules!"

 

I responded that this response totally missed my point: "I think we

are talking about two different things. Your statement only makes

sense if Tantra = Sexual Relations, which it does not. Tantra = Life,

of which sexual relations are an essential and important part, but

nonetheless only a small portion relative to the entire human

experience.

 

"My point applies to myself as well as you or any other person who

was not born into the tradition. Because Tantra *is* a tradition, one

that has evolved organically over millennia. My feeling is that

Tantra is a seamless web, and that it is both counterproductive and

potentially dangerous to pick and choose, accept and reject various

pieces of that web before gaining a fairly comprehensive vision of

the whole. It's like pulling threads out of a fine Persian carpet;

you never know when a tug here or a snip there will ruin the balance

and beauty of the whole thing.

 

The term Tantra is tossed around very freely nowadays, and generously

dropped into any number of New Age paperbacks and weekend retreats.

Which is fine -- but we must recognize it for what it is, a New Age

hodgepodge that has been completely stripped of its original meaning

and context. If such concoctions make people feel better, great; it

they lead to a greater degree of self-acceptance and psychic health,

all the better! But they are simply not "real" Tantra, and they will

not yield the results of the ancient tradition in context. If you

disagree with this statement, that is fine; it is simply my opinion

and experience. I may be completely wrong. But if you disagree with

me now, at least you will be disagreeing with what I actually mean

instead of what you are arbitrarily putting into my mouth.

 

Let me clarify this also, as to my own understanding of Tantra, for

what it's worth -- and again, you are free to consider me all wet, or

misguided or flat-out wrong. But in my opinion, Tantra is simply not

concerned with the devotee's sexual preference. Yes, its

iconographical imagery is nominally "heterosexual" for the most part,

but to stop the analysis there is to miss the real point. Because sex

is not what these icons are about -- sex is a metaphor and jumping

off point for what these icons are about.

 

For example, by the time a male devotee worships the Yoni, he is past

seeing it as a primarily human sexual organ or object; he sees only a

living symbol of Devi. It is not a "sexual" thing in the sense of

desiring the Yoni as he might in a non-ritual context. In fact,

if the Yoni *does* seem sexual or provoke an ordinary sexual response

(erection, ejaculation, etc.), then this is a sure sign that the

initiate is not ready for the ceremony. And in fact the ritual is

designed to avoid such reactions; a true Tantric ritual involving

genital worship is not a "sexy" occasion at all. It is very

mechanical, technical, slow, drawn out -- and previewed, followed,

and punctuated by any number of completely non-sexual rituals.

 

By the way, women initiates at such a ceremony will also worship the

Yoni, which denotes neither a sexual preference for women nor an

absence of such preference. It simply indicates that they are Shaktas.

Like mthe nmale devotees, they too are worshiping the higher function

of the Yoni -- as the Creative Principle of the Universe. There are

ceremonies in which Devi is represented by a young girl (Kumari) or

an old woman, or a group of either. They will invariably be fully

clothed. The woman's age, whether she has ever been or will ever be a

mother, whether she is sexually attracted to women or men, means

nothing really. It is simply her Femininity that channels the Devi.

And in this understanding any women thus worshiped will not take the

worship personally, but consider themselves as simply mediums who are

channelling the Devi manifest in them, as only female humans can. If

a "sexual" penetration is involved in a Tantric ritual (which is

extremely rare in real Tantra), it is simply because the male chosen

for this function is a stand-in for the Male principle (Purusha) or

Shiva, in juxtaposition to the woman's Female principle (Prakriti) or

Shakti. Perhaps the male is gay; perhaps the woman is lesbian -- who

cares? It simply *does not matter* in Tantra, from the ritual

perspective.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

There are two good articles I thought newcomers to the group will

find interesting. These articles will give you an overview of Tantras.

 

 

A) The Tantrike mode of Worship By Swami Madhavananda.

Main theme is in trying to trace the origin of the Tantrika

mode of worship

 

B) Evolution of the Tantras

By P.C Bagchi.

This article covers the following issues :

1. PLACE OF THE TANTRAS IN INDIAN SPIRITUAL LORE

2. THE VEDAS AND THE TANTRAS

3. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TANTRAS: THE SIVA TANTRAS, THE

YAMALAS

4. THREE CURRENTS OF TANTRIC TRADITIONS.

5. SOME OTHER TANTRIC SADHANAS

6. THE BUDDHIST TANTRAS

7. THE BRAHMANICAL TANTRAS

8. THE KAULA SCHOOLS AND OTHER VAISNAVA SECTS

9. FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON THE TANTRAS

 

To get access to these file, please go to the file section of the

group, and look for

 

Studies on the Tantra : Compilation of Articles on Tantra

 

** Note ** These articles can only be used for private study,

research, criticism or review. Other than that, please get permission

from The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta 700 029

 

 

Om ParaShakitye Namah

[Guest guest]

I fully and absolutly agree with DB.

It is also pertinent to state that just anybody cannot indulge in the sexual

side of tantra. For one he/she has to be an initiate. And after being initiated,

they have to undergo certain period of practices before they can even be

"considered" for initiation into the sexual side.

Once you enter that areana, you have no choice on the sexual partner. For

example in Bhairavi Chakra sadhana, which is described in Saundaryalahari Sloka

11 tarting with chathurbi srikantaiH" involves 4 couples and Devi. devi is not

involved in anything. She is just an observer sitting silent and immutable

watching over the events. She selects the partners and you cannot protest. if

you protest you are ineligible.

So all this bally hoo abut "Tantric Sex" (as stated in the west) is a lot of

nonsense. Your sexual preferences are irrelevant. In this context it is also

pertinent to mention that even masturbation can be used in Tantric sadhana.

I again reiterate there is as much sex in tantra as in an "ordinary" person's

life. But to indulge in sex in ordinary life also u have to pass a certain age

to be "capable" of sex. Similarly one has to become "capable" of

having "tantric

sex" before he/she can even contemplate "tantric sex".

I out "tantric sex" within " marks because it is not sex as known in ordinary

life at all.

Kochu

Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote:A member recently wrote and asked me

about the relationship between

Tantra and alternative (gay, lesbian) forms of sexuality. As I am

heterosexual by preference, I might not have been the ideal person to

ask. So I wanted to post my reaction in case any other members can

shed additional light on this topic. To summarize, my answer was

basically that a devotee's sexual orientation -- heterosexual or

otherwise -- simply does not matter. I began my explanation with a

caveat about avoiding the temptation to monkey around with the

received doctrine of the Tantras to make them fit one's social,

sexual and political views:

 

"My only advice would be to heed the words of Picasso, who once said

something to the effect, "I consider myself free to smash the

conventions of Western art only because I have thoroughly mastered

the conventions of Western art." Because Picasso could paint a

portrait as realistic as a Rembrandt; he didn't choose to distort and

cube human bodies in his later work because didn't know how to paint

properly, but because he'd "been there, done that" with traditional

Western art, and now felt compelled to go somewhere new. The problem

today -- in both Indian and the West -- is that many people don't

want to invest the kind of time and effort to learn the real thing,

which is not especially easy, accessible, or 'sexy.' Instead, the

term "Tantra" is being used to sell a lot of easy, sex-centered,

made-for-Western-consumption, New Age schemes and belief systems."

 

My correspondent, as it turns out, was offended by this statement,

and snapped back, "It almost sounds like you are saying a person

(me?) should be a great heterosexual first, before trying to change

the rules!"

 

I responded that this response totally missed my point: "I think we

are talking about two different things. Your statement only makes

sense if Tantra = Sexual Relations, which it does not. Tantra = Life,

of which sexual relations are an essential and important part, but

nonetheless only a small portion relative to the entire human

experience.

 

"My point applies to myself as well as you or any other person who

was not born into the tradition. Because Tantra *is* a tradition, one

that has evolved organically over millennia. My feeling is that

Tantra is a seamless web, and that it is both counterproductive and

potentially dangerous to pick and choose, accept and reject various

pieces of that web before gaining a fairly comprehensive vision of

the whole. It's like pulling threads out of a fine Persian carpet;

you never know when a tug here or a snip there will ruin the balance

and beauty of the whole thing.

 

The term Tantra is tossed around very freely nowadays, and generously

dropped into any number of New Age paperbacks and weekend retreats.

Which is fine -- but we must recognize it for what it is, a New Age

hodgepodge that has been completely stripped of its original meaning

and context. If such concoctions make people feel better, great; it

they lead to a greater degree of self-acceptance and psychic health,

all the better! But they are simply not "real" Tantra, and they will

not yield the results of the ancient tradition in context. If you

disagree with this statement, that is fine; it is simply my opinion

and experience. I may be completely wrong. But if you disagree with

me now, at least you will be disagreeing with what I actually mean

instead of what you are arbitrarily putting into my mouth.

 

Let me clarify this also, as to my own understanding of Tantra, for

what it's worth -- and again, you are free to consider me all wet, or

misguided or flat-out wrong. But in my opinion, Tantra is simply not

concerned with the devotee's sexual preference. Yes, its

iconographical imagery is nominally "heterosexual" for the most part,

but to stop the analysis there is to miss the real point. Because sex

is not what these icons are about -- sex is a metaphor and jumping

off point for what these icons are about.

 

For example, by the time a male devotee worships the Yoni, he is past

seeing it as a primarily human sexual organ or object; he sees only a

living symbol of Devi. It is not a "sexual" thing in the sense of

desiring the Yoni as he might in a non-ritual context. In fact,

if the Yoni *does* seem sexual or provoke an ordinary sexual response

(erection, ejaculation, etc.), then this is a sure sign that the

initiate is not ready for the ceremony. And in fact the ritual is

designed to avoid such reactions; a true Tantric ritual involving

genital worship is not a "sexy" occasion at all. It is very

mechanical, technical, slow, drawn out -- and previewed, followed,

and punctuated by any number of completely non-sexual rituals.

 

By the way, women initiates at such a ceremony will also worship the

Yoni, which denotes neither a sexual preference for women nor an

absence of such preference. It simply indicates that they are Shaktas.

Like mthe nmale devotees, they too are worshiping the higher function

of the Yoni -- as the Creative Principle of the Universe. There are

ceremonies in which Devi is represented by a young girl (Kumari) or

an old woman, or a group of either. They will invariably be fully

clothed. The woman's age, whether she has ever been or will ever be a

mother, whether she is sexually attracted to women or men, means

nothing really. It is simply her Femininity that channels the Devi.

And in this understanding any women thus worshiped will not take the

worship personally, but consider themselves as simply mediums who are

channelling the Devi manifest in them, as only female humans can. If

a "sexual" penetration is involved in a Tantric ritual (which is

extremely rare in real Tantra), it is simply because the male chosen

for this function is a stand-in for the Male principle (Purusha) or

Shiva, in juxtaposition to the woman's Female principle (Prakriti) or

Shakti. Perhaps the male is gay; perhaps the woman is lesbian -- who

cares? It simply *does not matter* in Tantra, from the ritual

perspective.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am reminded of a book I flipped through recently at a local coffee

shop. There are seminars, trips to the Amazon jungle where seminar

participants may, in the course of their study (weeks I think) they

may take some herbs which have a psychoactive property. This is used

by the natives for an ecstatic religious experience. However, the most

potent of these may not be taken by the participants of any seminar,

indeed this experience of the tribal members will not be shared with

anyone who does not stay with them and learn their ways for a period

of about 3 years.

 

It would be easy to obtain this herb, I'm sure. But getting the herb

and getting the legitimate experience are two different things, and

this is clearly understood by the tribe. This potent herb must be

matched with a lengthy and strong commitment for it to bring about the

true experience.

 

Thus I see Tantra. Anyone can have sex. And it is a powerful aspect

of our human experience. For it to be a true spiritual experience, it

seems it must be matched with a strong commitment to learning to fully

absorb the complexities that make Tantra the thing it really is.

 

Context is everything.

 

prainbow

, "Nora"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> There are two good articles I thought newcomers to the group will

> find interesting. These articles will give you an overview of

Tantras.

>

>

> A) The Tantrike mode of Worship By Swami Madhavananda.

> Main theme is in trying to trace the origin of the Tantrika

> mode of worship

>

> B) Evolution of the Tantras

> By P.C Bagchi.

> This article covers the following issues :

> 1. PLACE OF THE TANTRAS IN INDIAN SPIRITUAL LORE

> 2. THE VEDAS AND THE TANTRAS

> 3. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TANTRAS: THE SIVA TANTRAS, THE

> YAMALAS

> 4. THREE CURRENTS OF TANTRIC TRADITIONS.

> 5. SOME OTHER TANTRIC SADHANAS

> 6. THE BUDDHIST TANTRAS

> 7. THE BRAHMANICAL TANTRAS

> 8. THE KAULA SCHOOLS AND OTHER VAISNAVA SECTS

> 9. FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON THE TANTRAS

>

> To get access to these file, please go to the file section of the

> group, and look for

>

> Studies on the Tantra : Compilation of Articles on Tantra

>

> ** Note ** These articles can only be used for private study,

> research, criticism or review. Other than that, please get

permission

> from The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta 700 029

>

>

> Om ParaShakitye Namah