AMBIGUOUS SEXUALITYthey are valid at all-may be related in ways other than successive sublation?
After all, from a historical standpoint, it is likely that each of the four has been
privileged at some time by some tantric practitioners. Certainly, there have been
hedonists who have read tantric sexual references quite literally, puritans who
have interpreted them as purely symbolic, and still others who have seen them as
celebrations of the body and a refined sexuality. Ka~ha himself is silent on how
his verses are to be read, so what basis have we for privileging one interpretation
over another? Further, is it not possible that more than one level of interpretation
may apply simultaneously? Perhaps all four interpretations express elements of
Kfu;lha's 'true purport', in a non-hierarchical manner. This would seem appropri-
ate in light of the multivalence I earlier assigned to religious texts in general and
tantric literature in particular. To these objections, I would reply only that if we
accept a multivalent interpretation of Ka~ha, then the 'yogic' interpretation
reflects at least part of what he is denoting in his songs. If this is so, then asceti-
cism plays some role in his life, so his sexual references must be ambiguous.
And, ifl have convinced the reader only of the fact that 'tantric sex' may not be
quite what it appears, and that tantra should not therefore be branded too quickly
as 'sexual mysticism', then my essay will have achieved its objective.
Finally, I want to note briefly a number of larger issues - the proverbial
'areas for further study' - that emerge from these considerations. The first is
comparative: it seems to me that there is a considerable similarity between the
'ambiguous sexuality' we have uncovered in the Buddhist tantras and a similar
ambivalence found in the mythology and imagery of Siva - expecially that of
the lingam, the phallus, which may symbolize either eros or ascesis, depending
on how it is interpreted.^35 Among non-Indian traditions, esoteric Taoism
employs sexual imagery in a way strikingly similar to that of the Buddhist
tantras; in Taoism, too, sublimation appears to be an important element of
'yoga', so sexual references there also seem to be ambiguous.^36 Evidence of an
ascetic purport to sexual references in either of these traditions would help to
support my contention regarding Buddhist tantra. The second issue is philosoph-
ical: I have indicated that I think that the term 'sex' ought to be applied to tantric
Action Seal practices with considerable caution. Some investigation of 'the
philosophy of sex' might help to clarify the issues involved. For example, philo-
sophers of sex in the analytic tradition have argued over whether sex ought to be
defined in a 'reductionist' manner as 'skin on skin' or in an 'expansionist'
manner as requiring a concern with another person.^37 If the former is accepted,
then perhaps tantric practices may be defined as truly 'sexual'; if the latter is
accepted, then their status as 'sexual' is more ambiguous. The third issue is
psycho-social: it might be interesting to consider the place of the 'person' in
tantric sexual practices. Philosophical issues of no-self aside, there is an 'other'
who serves as consort in the tantric tradition. Is the consort a 'fully equal
Partner'? A 'mere instrument'? Some combination of the two? Can the relation
between practitioner and consort be illuminated by Foucault's analysis of sex
as power,^38 or might it serve as a counter-example that brings his thesis into