TANTRIC BUDDHISM (INCLUDING CHINA AND JAPAN)IV. Summary, self-criticism and concluding remarksTo summarize, an analysis of the sexual imagery in the performance-songs of
Kar,lha reveals at least four levels of interpretation: ( 1) literal, where sexuality is
overt, unashamed and unsublimated, (2) symbolic, where the surface sexuality is
a metaphor for certain standard Buddhist meditative achievements, (3) 'higher'
literal, where symbolized meditative achievements are actualized by ritual sexu-
ality and ( 4) yogic, where sexual rites are revealed to entail sublimation rather
than indulgence, asceticism rather than eroticism. Thus, though the presence of
sexual practices in tantra - whether physically or, imaginatively performed -
may refute the idea that celibacy is crucial to mysticism, it does not necessarily
undermine the contention that chastity and asceticism are required on the
mystical path.
At least two objections may legitimately be raised against my argument. The
first is that I have ignored an important component of the experience of enlighten-
ment in tantric Buddhism, namely the 'great bliss' (mahiisukha) that is a simulta-
neous component of the mind that realizes the void nature of all phenomena. This
may not be sexual pleasure as generally understood, and need not result from
ritual sexuality, but it clearly is modelled on ordinary sexual pleasure and, more
importantly, makes explicit the fact that pleasure is a vital component of tantric
enlightenment. If this is the case, then, to describe the tradition's purposes as
'ascetic' seems misleading. Thus, Kiir,lha may not be describing ordinary sexual
bliss, but neither is he describing a state that is beyond all pleasure: indeed, he is
describing the highest of all pleasures, that of enlightenment. A possible reply to
this objection is that many unquestionably ascetic traditions have as their goal a
notion of supreme pleasure, even if their procedures entail the denial or sublima-
tion of pleasure. Thus, Patafijali's eight-fold yoga, or Orthodox hesychasm, or
much of Catholic contemplative life may involve self-denial, but what is won
through that denial is something immeasurably sweet, beyond any earthly pleas-
ure that can be known or imagined (cf. inter alia, Teresa of Avila). If it is argued
that it is not only the tantric goal, but the path, too, that involves bliss, it may be
pointed out that these other traditions also describe sublime pleasures, or 'conso-
lations' along the way, without thereby ceasing to be 'ascetic'. Further, the spe-
cific employment of a version of sexual bliss in tantric traditions is not for sexual
pleasure per se, but for the purpose of concentrating the mind and manifesting the
subtlest levels of consciousness, the transformation of which is the goal of tantric
practice. Thus, the only difference between tantra and these ascetic disciplines
may be the presence in the former - almost as a mere technicality - of some
practices that involve sexual intercourse.
A second objection that might reasonably be made is more historical and
hermeneutical. Have I not assumed, in my presentation of the four levels of
interpretation of Kiir,lha's songs, that each view is higher than the one that pre-
cedes it, and the final, 'yogic' view is highest of all, and therefore Kal)ha' s 'true
purport'? Have I not ignored the fact that these four levels of interpretation - if