I think there is a spectrum to what you are talking about, just as there is a spectrum of Buddhism and Buddhist practice.

For instance, on the one hand, you have Thich Nhat Hanh, who is this very soft and gentle being, even bordering on frail at times (not because of his age) but who manifests a very quiet, immovable and transcendent strength.

On the other hand, I’ve spent time with some Japanese Buddhists (who still seem to manifest some of the bold qualities of the samurai) and Tibetan teachers (including those who were non-monastic ngakpas who manifest very rugged qualities reminiscent of some of the Lakota shamans I’ve been around).

Incidentally, I’ve seen a similar phenomenon in Paganism, namely Pagan individuals in rural Ireland working with unbridled “warrior energies” (and the eviscerating powers of their Cailleach~initiatory battle-hag goddess), to males in American Pagan circles who seem to have been emasculated in their process of hugging the trees and worshipping the Goddess.

I wonder if what we’re talking about here isn’t something about balance, but also, perhaps, the very real possibility that there are very different energy reservoirs that people tap into depending upon “where they are at,” not unlike the martial arts where we have hard-styles and soft-styles, hard break-fall styles and quiet, internal styles (Bagua, T’ai Chi).

thank you for your comment and pointing out my cultural bias and assumptions. I was largely talking of Australian Buddhist men, and the Americans i have met, yes.

Your anecdote about the Italian Sangha is very interesting and has made me think. Thanks.

Peregrin

I was a Benedictine monk in my youth. Although the monastery where I trained was not your typical chant & pray centre (there was a medical clinic, research library and a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility attached), I would venture to say that sexual instincts were not repressed but rather sublimated.

It has been mentioned that “some Tantra does involve visualizing oneself as the deity in sexual embrace with a consort, as a way of sacralising and transmuting the sexual energy”. In our chapel, there was a statue of the Virgin where, if one was troubled, monks went to kneel and pray to the virgin and reported feeling embraced and comforted… the chapel was built on a major energy centre.

I received major training in that monastery and had a fairly busy schedule. The monastery was closed for political reasons and I was transfered to a more mainstream establishment. There, I spent weekdays scrubbing the floor as penance or standing in for ancient priests at troublesome parishes and weekends listening to naughty confessions from repressed catholic ladies; no medical clinic, research library and pharmaceutical manufacturing facility; as I had been transfered, none of the academic training I received was recognized. I put up with that for 6 months and left. and yes, in my new environment, the sex thing was becoming a problem.

All this to say that before automatically assuming that ” repressing like a Catholic monk” in the context of a discussion on tantric practices is a good description of christian monastic practices one should perhaps peruse Hildegard of Bingen to find that there is indeed documented practices that are very similar to the much touted and not always functional oriental tantra.

Thanks for the comments. I think maybe my post was unclear or you misunderstood certain aspects of it.

Basically i agree with what you are saying.

I did NOT say that Tibetan Tantra used physical sexual practices, only that Tantra transmutes the sexual force.

Saying that Tantra is simply the secret teachings is however, I feel, a bit limiting. Tantra has many aspects. Various Vajrayana techniques ARE seen as transforming the sexual energy of the practitioner. Many books and sources (including His Holiness) mention this, as does the teaching from my own Gelugpa Tantric master.

Yes, I agree about the way you describe the misunderstanding of ‘no self’ – this is detailed in the post I referred to, where I say almost exactly what you say

However, all this said we need to be clear too that some Tantra does involve visualizing oneself as the deity in sexual embrace with a consort, as a way of sacralising and transmuting the sexual energy. And actual use of sexual intercourse, the taking of a form consort, while very, very limited to the highest practitioners, is not unknown. The Dalai Lama himself refers to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama authorizing a small number of monks to practice with a form consort.

Thanks,

Peregrin

Regarding the concept you bring up of ‘no self’ this sounds like a confusion of the concept of Emptiness… which is not about negating one’s self… but rather understanding (and perhaps someday directly percieving) that nothing has self existence. Things exist, but not from their own “side” – rather they exist as perceptions of the viewer. True reality, being a projection of a Buddha. Karma is the paint that colors this emptiness… one’s karma dictates how one perceives any situation. A bad boss is empty. To one it’s a bad boss, to another a great boss. The boss is empty of any real nature… rather it is the perception of the boss each is seeing… a perception contingent upon each viewers own karma. If you have the karma to see a great boss, you will see it… and vice versa. A Mahayana Buddhist doesn’t strive to not exist, but rather to recognize they themselves are empty. To strive to directly see this emptiness.

The Gelug school… speaks about handling sexual desires in The Dalai Lama’s commentary of Shantideva’s work in, “A flash of Lightning in the Dark of Night.” Sexuality of monks is not expressed in Tantra… rather they are taught to see the real nature of flesh bodies…

Tantra in Mahayana Buddhism is specific to one concept: Secret Teachings.

There is a recording of a monk who sat down with a westerner who wanted to talk to them about Tantra, and pulled out a book of sexual practices. The little Tibetan monk said he got up and ran.