what u think of tantra?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: what u think of tantra?

Post by User1249x »

i think it is very dangerous and leads people to a bad place, ie a question might arise for some people; 'if tantra is not sex and is a tool for enlightenment then why can not children who can get enlightened (7+) practice tantra which is a tool for enlightenment?'. I think this is also why some of these traditions have become known for 'fighting over boys', it is just what i've heard.

It is not the way of course. In general there is no place for any kind of massage of what is between the legs for any other reason than medical. Showing it to others is likewise inappropriate lest required for medical reasons, it is not some sensation, they are 'private parts'.
coffeendonuts
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:26 pm

Re: what u think of tantra?

Post by coffeendonuts »

I know little of tantra or Buddhism, but from what I've read...here is why I think the Indo-Tibetan tradition is more worthwhile to explore:

1. When I read about working with emotions and sexuality, it tells me that the tradition acknowledges a level of experience most spend lifetimes denying. Every major world religion cracks down on sexuality and celebrates celibacy for example, yet it eventually rears its ugly head as sexual misconduct. Orthodox monastic Tibetan Buddhism is included. This can reinforce the view that sex has no place in spirituality, but no one talks about how much the structural pressures of monasticism and sex as social taboo plays a role in the problem.

2. Most people are never in touch with the way the body feels when thoughts and emotions move through them every day. The ordinary mode of being is to act on thoughts/beliefs/ideologies reactively and perpetuate them. If the Indo-Tibetan tradition says there is something constructive to facing the realities of embodied experience with attention, compassion, and awareness instead of ignoring them, might be worth listening.

3. At least the way replies have been so far, and I assume this has a bit of a reflection from the orthodox traditions in that if you ask a Theravada or Mahayana monk what he thinks of tantra, he will regurgitate the same views found here, there is a focus on scriptural authority and ideology. Sex is bad because the Buddha said so. It's written right here, see. You go to hell. Our ideological tradition is primary. What we should do is pretend that and everything else that's inconvenient (yet stubbornly still lingers in experience) is bad by closing our eyes and focusing on our breath. Let's strive for the Jhanas. This will make them go away. But what does experience actually say? I wonder if shoving aspects of one's experiences "away" is even possible, if that makes problems come back more virulent, and if that is what tantra means when it says that ignoring one's experiences perpetuates samsara (as implied here).

4. Theravada today owes much of its reconstruction to Westerners in the 20th century. It's doubtful there was a historical Buddha other than for a narrative arc to tie up wildly different traditions (you know, a little like how China claims its many Sinitic languages are "dialects" in order to maintain the illusion of a unified Chinese identity), and it is known that Theravada is not the earliest iteration.
Last edited by coffeendonuts on Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:32 pm, edited 11 times in total.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: what u think of tantra?

Post by auto »

coffeendonuts wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:52 pm 3. At least the way replies have been so far, and I assume this has a bit of a reflection from the orthodox traditions in that if you ask a Theravada or Mahayana monk what he thinks of tantra, he will regurgitate the same views found here, there is a focus on scriptural authority and ideology. Sex is bad because the Buddha said so. It's written right here, see. You go to hell. Our ideological tradition is primary. What we should do is pretend that and everything else that's inconvenient (yet stubbornly still lingers in experience) is bad by closing our eyes and focusing on our breath. Let's strive for the Jhanas. This will make them go away. But what does experience actually say? I wonder if shoving aspects of one's experiences "away" is even possible, if that makes problems come back more virulent, and if that is what tantra means when it says that ignoring one's experiences perpetuates samsara (as implied here).
Tantra is about sex as much celibacy is about sex - progress comes from abstaining where that deprivation is causing sublimation by that same thought what causes affliction. What you are thinking of becomes hearts inclination; craving is defeated by craving. Craving is food for attabhava by that you will get to know what causes sublimation and craving ceases immediately.

the post https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 79#p595179 there what have linked image even says its not worth discussing, i could agree. But if one has big brain then methuna is abandoned by methuna. Albeit the latter being illusory, only the ordinary person can participate in methuna for the educated it is illusory. Ordinary person's desires are imperfect and viewed by the educated one as mental deficiency what only can be cured by education and celibacy. Definition of the progress really.
Post Reply