Tantra vs. Buddhist ethics (Tantra is a lot more fun!)

I don't know much about Tantra. I've had the impression that Tantra was all about wild spiritual sex -- which might have some truth to it, but possibly just a little.

David Chapman, though, knows a lot about Tantra. The real Tantra. Also, Chapman is an expert on Buddhism. So he's just the guy to write a post called "Buddhist ethics": a Tantric critique.

The post, like all of Chapman's writings (I'm a fan), is clear and nicely composed. Still, it will strike people not into this subject as rather Buddhist-geeky. 

Which isn't a criticism. Just an observation. 

I read some parts of his piece carefully, and other parts less carefully. The whole essay, though, merits reading. Though focused on Tantric and Buddhist ethics, Chapman addresses issues that are relevant to anyone seeking to live a happy, meaningful, ethical life.

Which is just about everyone, right?

Here's some passages that I particularly liked, which will give you a flavor of David Chapman's piece.

A highlight of my time as a Wiccan Neopagan was the culminating ritual of a week-long retreat. The ceremony evolved by stages into two hundred witches dancing naked around a bonfire for hours after midnight. It was a sublime, transformative experience.

It is unthinkable that anything similar might happen on a Consensus Buddhist retreat. But why? What Buddhist principle would it violate?

The ritual violated every principle of Sutrayana. But nobody practices that in America. What of Consensus Buddhism? That is not anti-nakedness, anti-dancing, anti-bonfires, or anti-staying-up-late. Or is it?

Such a ritual would be too much fun. You might have frighteningly strong emotions. You might lose control. That would be undignified and awkward. Someone might see you having too much fun, and would judge you for it, and you’d feel awful the next day.

These are not Buddhist criteria. They are Puritan criteria. They are American middle class public morality—which is mainly Puritanism, lightly revised to reflect improved contraceptive technology.

...Two puritan fears inhibit us. The first is that intense enjoyment must lead to harm. “That ritual sounds extremely problematic. Probably everyone drank way too much, and some had inappropriate sex they regretted in the morning. You should be mindful at all times, lest you harm yourself or others. That was the traditional meaning of the Fifth Precept.”

Tantra emphasizes personal responsibility, and basic sense and sanity. Tantra is not hedonism—the antonym of puritanism in current usage—but only because it recognizes actions have longer-term consequences. Seeking immediate pleasure without regard for consequences is simply stupid.

If you drink too much, expect and accept the result. Don’t blame the ritual’s leaders; no one forced you to do that. You should know your own limits and act accordingly. “We shouldn’t hold revels on Buddhist retreats because some people would do stupid things” gives stupid people veto power over the religious practice of responsible people. That’s morally wrong, in my opinion.

The second fear is social judgement. Puritanism encourages everyone to police everyone else’s enjoyment. I think that is also morally wrong.

If I can offer just one piece of ethical advice, from this whole series on “Buddhist ethics,” it is this:

Do not judge, censor, condemn, or ridicule anyone else (not even those bad people!) for enjoying things you consider “problematic,” “inappropriate,” or just don’t like yourself.

“Problematic” could be an expression of genuine moral concern. Too often, though, it’s just an expression of self-righteous judgmentalism. Those bad people enjoy the wrong things, and too much. “Inappropriate” may conceal simple envy.

Learn to accept other people enjoying things you dislike—or that your social group rejects. Then learn to enjoy their enjoyment of those things. This is entirely possible! You may then come to enjoy those things, too—if you have the courage to engage in pleasures your social group disparages.

You may find the only reason you thought you disliked them is that “people like you” aren’t “supposed to” like them. You may also find you truly don’t like them—and that’s also fine. You can still enjoy other people’s enjoyment of them. 

Comments

[D]

Armstrong claims that Plotinus' major focus, esp in his later years of writing was 'to live well and attain our true good.' If only the dead guru could return to the one and only Brian Hines, I'm confident that he would clearly find your impeccable humour to be the true art of happiness. I am forever in your debt and wishing you and your Tantra partner the most blissful of encounters. Regards, JY

[Metaphysicaldiscourse.wordpress.com]

PS: My favourite passage:

“We shouldn’t hold revels on Buddhist retreats because some people would do stupid things” gives stupid people veto power over the religious practice of responsible people. That’s morally wrong, in my opinion.

[Jen]

When I look at the picture you have posted I feel an involuntary shudder because from my perspective Buddhism is a path of purity and Tantra is about indulgence. I found this article about morals and ethics and our identity detector – some excerpts:

Moral features are the chief dimension by which we judge.

We tend to think that our memories determine our identity, but it's moral character that really makes us who we are.

Research has found that the single most important mental trait in judging self-identity is one's deeply held moral convictions. We are not only concerned with moral character when constructing an identity for others, but when doing so for ourselves.

Why does our identity detector place so much emphasis on moral capacities?

Moral features are the chief dimension by which we judge, sort and choose social partners. For men and women alike, the single most sought after trait in a long-term romantic partner is kindness - beating out beauty, wealth, health, shared interests, even intelligence.

The identity detector is designed to pick up on moral features because this is the most important type of information we can have about another person.

The lesson of the identity detector is this: when we dig deep, beneath our memory traces and career ambitions and favourite authors and small talk, we find a constellation of moral capacities. This is what we should cultivate and burnish, if we want people to know who we really are.

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/why-moral-character-is-the-key-to-personal-identity/?utm_source=Aeon+newsletter&utm_campaign=179c223bd4-Daily_Newsletter_14th_October_NPD10_14_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-179c223bd4-68881825

[Todd Rush Chambers]

Why would anyone call David Chapman an "expert on Buddhism?"

The Dalai Lama is a real expert on both Buddhism and Tantra.

[As]

Dalai Lama isnt "real" expert on (...) and Tantra. He is like social product of the history of own lineage, politics and own time. He is the same expert as anyone who wants to write something after getting a certain level of empirical knowledge. No monastic tantra exists in Nevar (yet).

[Dian]

We practice tantra once in a while at home with my man according to various tips and instructions from the Internet. It is a pleasant relaxing and exciting massage of the whole body. Otherwise, for example, in Prague there are special salons, where tantra performs something like this salon http://erotic-massage-prague.net/services/tantra-massage/ But it is more for someone who is single I think.

[Todd Chambers]

https://www.dalailama.com/news/2014/explaining-tantra-in-tibetan-buddhism-at-shuchi-in-university

https://www.dalailama.com/teachings/kalachakra-initiations