Tantra IV – i The Kulamarga or Esoteric Way: The Preconditions

And now we move on to more difficult territory because, instead of discussing the theory, we have to look at the practice of the esoteric way in Tantra – of enlightenment through sexual practice – which is regarded by most Western eyes as either exploitative (because of the social conditions of the time) or cold-hearted (because of the ‘attitude’ into which the person enters the process).

The charge of ‘exploitation’ should not be dismissed. It is axiomatic in the modern world (and an axiom we accept without qualification) that sexual practices should always be between fully informed consenting adults. In fact, it turns out that the partners in the esoteric way are expected to be both consenting and fully informed but more of that in a moment.

It is a more complex point whether a hired sexual partner can be a fully informed consenting adult but we would argue that this is so in any society that is reasonably free and where the hiring is in a free market where the adults make free choices in this respect. In the original tradition, the instructors of the cult were women either as ‘dream creatures’ (goddesses) or as mistresses trained in the arts (who no doubt had to be paid something if only to eat). These were selected by the adept much as one might select a psychotherapist or piano teacher and there are similarities in the functional relationship between them.

Caste and looks are specifically deemed to be irrelevant and there is a certain element of submission to the teacher – this sense of submission to the superior wisdom of the female teacher somewhat offsets any suggestion of exploitation although many modern women would consider the ‘muse complex’ to be just another variant of patriarchy and who is to say that they are not entirely wrong. Obviously, this traditional mentality is to all intents and purposes dead in the world and modern attempts to revive ‘sacred prostitution’ (apart from the fact that such practitioners are likely to be flung into jail by an increasingly socially conservative European politicians or in sexually miserabilist American communities) do not really ring true.

Some, though not all, feminists would disagree with the ethics of all this but that is another argument where I come down on the side of the liberty of the individual and against the imposition of external moral standards where no coercion is involved,. Let us leave it there: the divide between authoritarian liberalism and libertarianism of any type, left or right, is absolute and can be fought out on the revolutionary barricades at the right time but not here.

The modern equivalent to Tantric practice is either going to be the ‘dream teaching’ (essentially accessing the unconscious through masturbatory techniques well understood by modern Western magickal practitioners) or the extremely difficult business of finding a like-minded partner who can strip away the guilt and shame of sexual practice, of which more in a moment. But let us not let these practical matters get in the way of pursuing our theme – the translation of Indian possibility into Western possibility. Modern Westerners can try to mock up the original conditions for sexual Tantra but that is probably why it has degenerated into sky-dancing couples counselling or an excuse for free love jollies amongst the Californian middle classes. The reality is that a revival that is not private fantasy depends on something we are very far from in the West – an egalitarian and ‘heroic’ attitude to sexuality that is based on men and women both ‘getting’ the philosophical underpinnings of this posting that we have published earlier.

So, let us move on to the allegation of almost sociopathic ‘cold-heartedness’ in dealing with sexual relations. Here we are on sure ground but only if we strip away the Western assumption that sexuality is always to be contained within complex societal and emotional bonds, a legacy of the Judaeo-Christian communitarian tradition. This is not to deny societal and emotional bonds freely entered into but it is to raise questions of why these bonds should be totalitarian in effect and why sexual expression must always be associated with a convergence of ends (traditionally marriage and love) and not be seen as an effective tool for entering into the Self and pulling out what is necessary for further development.

Indeed, strip away the local social conditions and language as we have been trying to do throughout this series and the general message of tantra would seem to be permit this possibility although we also see the same possibilities for change in artistic expression, playfulness, magical expression and solitude - and this list is by no means exhaustive. I have done by best to forewarn the Western liberal and traditionalist that we are not moving into comfortable territory. I can do no more.

The tradition itself hedges itself around with negatives – the practice is not orgiastic in the sense of a seeking for pleasure, nor is it about creating material new life. It is highly disciplined and termed ‘heroic’, in an almost Nietzschean sense, as a means of self creation, of self realisation. Of course, the tradition positions this as an identification with the divine (Shiva) which we do not. We take the process at its word – and refer you back to the theory – as the ‘realisation of the essence of the Self’ but where, existentially, we know the essence of the Self will be a transformative invention of the Self. In a manner of speaking, we have ended up here with a sort of anti-Tantra, subverting its very meaning in relation to the absolute in order to return it to a consideration of its relationship to the means that are required to meet its claimed end, the knowing of subject-selves through their relationship to object-others.

The ‘heroic’ aspects of the original practice still apply however. First, the final resolution is wholly dependent on a process referred to in the tradition as the raising of the serpent Kundalini. Again, taking away alien analogical traditional terminology, what this means is that the body turns in on itself and centres itself on itself from base to peak so that it is integrated with the final sexual union as a whole. The aim is a flow upwards and a form of balance prior to ekstasis. The control of perception and thoughts has to be undertaken without anxieties, doubts or any external guilt or shame and that, in itself, is massively difficult for anyone today and possibly has always been so. It is a total shedding of past societal and familial norms in order to effect the transformation. In this, I would suggest, lies much of the liberatory effect. This includes, especially difficult for the modern Western mind, a total detachment from the partner and from the intent to pleasure and a redirection inwards ‘selfishly’ of attention. Since ‘selfishness’, like ‘cheating’ or ’hypocrisy’, are absolutely core cultural ‘bads’ in Western thought, we can see the challenge immediately – how does one possibly become (albeit momentarily in the context of a whole life and without any suggestion that one acts selfishly in the world outside the practice) ‘selfish’ even for a moment without guilt or shame.

For some, this will be impossible while the habitual sociopath is excluded from the game by their inability to reflect on their own self in precisely these terms. No wonder that the tradition suggests that there are few who could even attempt this and even fewer who would succeed. The idea is that, even in the most highly excitable of circumstances surrounded by multiple sources of stimulation (so solitude as such or quiet are not required as in many ritual conditions), the practitioner can withdraw completely from the actual excitation and replace it with a very different sort of inward ‘bliss’, one of self-realisation.

Let us return to the partner – and I am aware that I am working within a heterosexual paradigm here although there is no reason why it cannot be a homosexual or even polyamorous or bisexual relationship – which is assumed to be male although the more I consider this, the more I see no reason for not reversing sexual roles so that the primary partner is a strong and heroic woman. The only reason it should not be is not biological but cultural and there is no cultural condition that is not reversible through the exercise of human will. The issue is the desire of men and women to reverse and play with historic roles and not their ability to do so.

The process starts with an expression of respect for the other, the giver of the conditions for enlightenment. Although she/he is to be treated in a detached way at the moment of ‘bliss’ as tool of bliss, the person who gives this service of inestimable value is honoured and respected from the very beginning. They are appreciated in the most fundamental way. It goes without saying that the honour and respect (and implicit gratitude) continue after the event as much as before – there is no mistreatment of women or misogyny here unless you are one of those sour old crones who invest the sexual act itself with misogynistic meaning and, of course, both parties are consenting and highly informed. There is no heroism or success in performing acts in secret on unwitting lovers.

Against the norms of much formal religion in traditionalist cultures, the ‘other’ (more specifically the female here) is not degrading man through encouraging his desires simply by the fact of her existing. The opportunity to provide pleasure is presented as an act of high worth that can lead to liberation. Of course, we must not get confused here – the original model is still traditionalist with women assigned societal roles (as are men) but the roles are honoured and not just taken for granted. Personally, I am not sure this is much of an improvement because the roles still de-limit both men and women in a caste society but the retention or jettisoning of traditionalist societal roles in itself has no real effect on the process we are writing about.

And what of the person seeking enlightenment? Well, the character attributes are pretty tough to meet – there is an awareness of oneself (‘interiority’), of course, and we have mentioned the need to abandon societal norms of guilt and shame and be ‘heroic’ against them but he/she must also be devoid (at least at the time of search) of strong passions and allegiances and must be bodily balanced.

Of course, this posting breaks the golden rule which is secrecy. The original operations of the cult were probably secret because they were antinomian and disruptive but, equally, we can take at face value that the system (apart from wanting perhaps not to see a ‘closed shop’ opened up and professional standards deteriorate) was available only to those who had dealt with many of the issues of guilt, shame, passion and detachment by the time they reached the ‘yogini’ and had come to some sort of positive philosophy of life whose nearest Western analogy is probably that of Nietzsche. This drive to existential self-realisation is apparent in the work required as a pre-condition for the more esoteric (in social terms) practices.

There is at this point an important caveat, one familiar from Nietzsche – this is not a Stirnerite breaking away from all restraint as an autonomous individual. This is heroism but not adventurism. What this means is a reiteration that the person seeking enlightenment is going to have to do two things that are self-restraints: ‘purification’ (an essentialist term which I do not like but which can be reinterpreted as existential commitment); and ‘humility’ (a Judaeo-Christian term which we should also not like but which simply means, not abasement before a mysterious God or authority, but an acceptance that, where it matters, we depend on another person entirely).

Part of the critique of ‘adventurism’ is a critique of those who mistake the intense kundalini experience – perhaps also the exceptional orgasm created through meditative concentration or just good sex – with the critically different self-enlightenment being spoken of in cultic practice. There are warnings of what might happen (a descent into hell) without right preparation but I think we can pass these by.

Now, after all the preparations and constraints and warnings, the ‘siddha’ and the ‘yogini’ are to meet (perhaps with other such adepts) and this is cast in terms much like those we have reviewed philosophically – as sources of energy (yogini) to be transferred to their object-others (the ‘siddha’) in order to effect (in our view, momentary and illusory but still profound) merger of both so that object-others become subject-selves together – at least, as they perceive their situation.