Mysticism and sexuality
August 14th, 2007 Posted in Jesus / Christianity, Love, Spirituality
I want to thank everyone who commented on my last post. I also want to clarify and dig deeper into part of the huge area I addressed in it. What I was really wondering when I asked "why is it so often the renunciates who are the one who elucidate sacred sexuality," I didn’t mean simply sexuality in general, which comes with strong conditions attached to it in virtually ALL cultures, but the tantric, spiritual aspect of sexuality; sexuality as a reflection of the union of the soul with the divine. Why is it celibate Buddhist monks who are the ones who present the yab-yum with the Buddha and his consort? Why is it St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa who present us with the erotic images of the soul in passionate union with God?
There certainly are exceptions: the Sufi poets, married Indian gurus, etc. But I’ve never heard a Christian layperson say anything like, "what you are doing is expressing the passionate giving of God pouring his love into the world. You are being God for each other, the soul for each other." However, the mystical meaning of sexuality is quite often, in East and West, presented most strongly by renunciates.
A couple of comments suggested that it was double-speak or sexual frustration on the part of the celibates. I think there’s something deeper at work. As I said before, desire is tricky… I think that some degree of spiritual growth is necessary for sex to be even be able to be seen as something essentially giving. The desire to "get" permeates sex: Get some, get laid, get off. I think it takes some degree of taming the "getting" engine of the ego, before sexuality can be seen as spiritual activity… one certainly doesn’t have to be a celibate to do so, but the monastic traditions, East and West, were created largely for that purpose. Now, things are beginning to change a bit… millions of laypeople are discovering mysticism within their faith, and sacred sexuality is beginning to be addressed. You might hear of Christian tantra sooner than you’d think.
15 Responses to “Mysticism and sexuality”
By Irving on Aug 14, 2007
Let’s first make the distinction between sex and procreation, between desire and the genetic drive to reproduce and in doing so evolve the species over the generations. It is so much a part of our lives and make-up that we often take it for granted in the “that’s the way it is and has always been” frame of mind.
But procreation is species driven, while sex nowadays, with the advent of birth control and regardless of STDs, can be recreational. It is such a complicated part of our daily thought and being that to form a Christian or Jewish or Muslim tantra is very unlikely. The Sufis, though many were married, attempted to eliminate anything, including all desires, from distracting them from God. When the self and all its desires is emptied from the heart, God shines forth. The self includes all forms of the ego, both primitive and subtle. Empty your self and be filled with God. Marriage and the nurturing of children are an important part of the lessons of the path, the giving of your self to others.
It is a complicated issue
Few have tamed the getting and concentrated on the giving. God willing, this will someday change when the race has become sexually mature. We are still in our infancy for the most part.
Peace and Blessings!
By Jon on Aug 14, 2007
Great explanation, Irving! We’re a prepubescent race!
By Z on Aug 17, 2007
oh? I thought it to be rather natural for us to want to please others sexually. Sure it maybe tainted by the desire to impress or to gain the affection of others, but natural and widespread nonetheless.
By Jon on Aug 17, 2007
I agree with you, Z. The desire to give pleasure, I definitely consider a very different force than the “getting” drive.
By Irving on Aug 17, 2007
Z is of course right about most women naturally wanting to please others as the nurtures and childbearers, they are indeed the giving life force. It is a famous tradition in Islam that “Paradise is at the feet of the mothers.” As far as men go, certainly some do want to please the woman during sex. I was making a general statement about the nature of the species. Like I said, its complicated by many many variables of personality and ego and intention. And denying the body a natural release is certainly a source of frustration that acts out in a variety of ways besides short temper and loneliness and depression at times. Sex feels good, it releases endorphins that activate the blood flow as well as the pleasure centers. And with the emotional addition of attraction and love, it is doubly rewarding. And also possessive and jealous and territorial, all the primitive brain instincts of the species.
LOL, it is REALLY complicated.
By greenfrog on Aug 18, 2007
Jon,
I appreciate your exploration of this, though I’m not sure I have anything material to add to the discussion.
The so-frequent-it’s-a-cliche situation of spiritual leaders tumbling head-long into sexually damaging their devotees provides a contrast to the St. Theresa de Avila descriptions.
And yet…
While I am skeptical that I will ever be free of the attachment-based delusions of self-ness, I can attest that both my wife of 22 years and I desire each other’s well-being more than we desire our attachments to the other. Within that context, perhaps, your comment seems to resonate with me. Seeing and setting aside the desire for self-ness may enable one to find in sexuality some of the same values that we find in all the varieties of other interpersonal interactions.
By Bonnie on Aug 19, 2007
What is URI?
By Bonnie on Aug 19, 2007
Sorry, ignore that. (I’m new to blogs). I identify with many of the comments posted on this site, & I will visit again. (writing from Tasmania, Australia).
By Jon on Aug 19, 2007
Welcome, Bonnie! And BTW, URI is pretty much the same thing as URL or website address.
By Dano on Aug 28, 2007
…Didn’t Augustine frame sex and the sacred…while emphasising the ‘giveness’ of sex…when he reportedly compared the marriage bed to the cross of Christ?
I’m not sure what St. Augustine had in mind except perhaps that ….on the cross, Christ gave Himself unconditionally to the world, on the marriage bed, a man and a woman give themselves unconditionally to each other…
…and in that context, it seems, what we might call traditional Christen teaching on human sexuality, i.e. sacred, sacramental, unitive, procreative…, is, well, sort of, U know, right on.?
By Yvonne on Aug 29, 2007
Here’s a great sermon on The Song of Songs which is totally about its literal meaning (whilst acknowledging its metaphorical meaning): http://revthom.blogspot.com/2007/02/sermon-godly-erotic-delivered-2-11-07.html
Most religions are framed and organised by men. For men, sex is usually about penetration, whereas receptiveness to the Divine is about being penetrated. The Greek sexual code said that ‘real’ men should always penetrate and never be penetrated: hence Christian homophobia. Therefore according to most religions you have to give up the desire to penetrate others in order to be penetrated by the Divine; if you’re not gay, this implies celibacy. A Christian mystic went to the East to try Goddess religion, but found that was all about being penetrated, too. Also Heathen men who get into seidr (a shamanic practice of receiving communication from the Divine realms) find themselves becoming more receptive/queer. St Theresa of Avila was pierced by an angel’s spear…
None of this applies to female sexuality (as we can’t penetrate except with artificial assistance, and are usually the ones being penetrated, which is maybe why you see more women in churches), but no-one asked women what they thought (well, Jesus did and Odin did, but they were rare in that).
I recommend the wonderful book “God’s Beauty Parlour, and other queer spaces in and around the Bible” by Stephen Moore, which explains all this very well.
By Jon on Aug 30, 2007
Thanks for such well-though comments, Dano and Yvonne.
Dano, I quite agree that for the most part, Christian sexual teaching right on. Far more is right with it than wrong with it… the welcoming of God into joining, the sacredness of the bond, the value of waiting and self-discipline, the value of self-giving. Yet, gays are told that no matter how great their love and spirituality may be, they can never have such a union, that the biology really is the basis of it all. And for the most part, after the romantic words of a wedding ceremony, talk of God in sexuality is usually absent from churches.
Yvonne, thanks for your thoughts. I agree, the yin position seems to be a universal in meeting with God… my teacher and his teacher before him also say than in mediation, prayer,preparation, their goal is to be as receptive, yin, and yielding as possible. But in the spiritual warrior context that my teacher embodies, the yin and yang flow together.. In being so yielded, the presence of no-mind takes over, and he can move/be moved in ways that defy explanation, and has never been defeated. Spirtiual yielding –> physical actiion.
I’m also thinking of the “muscular spirituality” waves in Protestantism to nourish masculine spirituality, with the YMCA movement in the early 1900s, PromiseKeepers, and the excellent book Wild at Heart… There IS that desire to wed the yieldiing and being penetrated by God with action and strength, but it would be nice to hear someone just come out and SAY it, wouldn’t it?
By Tracie on Aug 31, 2007
But I’ve never heard a Christian layperson say anything like, “what you are doing is expressing the passionate giving of God pouring his love into the world. You are being God for each other, the soul for each other.”
Only because you haven’t talked to me yet.
I’ve been thinking that for at least a decade now. I just didn’t dare say anything about it. I thought I’d get lynched.
By Oui on Apr 28, 2008
The practice of sex has changed considerably since the ancient authors advocated celibacy. When I think about it, sex itself may not have been the real root of distraction. Perhaps the children produced by sex were, nearly 2000 years ago, way too much distraction for anyone, man or woman, to be able to devote very much time to personal spiritual development.
Lifespans were far shorter than today, so raising healthy children would have been (and still is) a top priority. There was no reliable birth control, so experimenting/exploring sex was more than difficult.
Celibacy was a logical option, at the time. Now, with birth control or sterilization, sex can be freely enjoyed/explored on a widespread spiritual basis like never before.
This is the first time in 10,000 years that spiritual sex can be practiced. Granted, the practitioners of tantra have been doing it for a long time, but I don’t think it was ever extremely widespread.
Spiritual sex with my partner has deeply enriched my overall spiritual life and introduced mysticism.
I think now is the time to explore this overlooked aspect of spiritual experience.
By Alexandros on May 22, 2008
Whether we accept life completly or not, Sex “IS” Spiritual. All is God, first seek that understanding and the natures of sexuality will be revealed - no need for waffling or speculation