Friday, November 18, 2005

Sacred Sexuality

Depth calls on height, the Goddess on the God,
On him who is the flame that quickens her;
That he and she may seize the silver reins
and ride as one the twin-horsed chariot.
Let the hammer strike the anvil
Let the lightning touch the earth
Let the Lance ensoul the Grail
Let the magic come to birth.
*
Gardenerian invocation, Drawing Down the Sun
*
Ok, it now becomes necessary to bring it all together. Adhering to a spiritual philosophy that embraces such an idea as a Whore aspect to the Goddess, a Seducer aspect to the God, besides the Mother/Father aspects, tends to broaden ones perspective of the sacred, as well as considerably relaxing ones attitude to sex.
An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
This is the one and only “law” of the craft, and a valuable meditation, being that it cannot be taken literally.
Wicca is non-dogmatic and focuses on direct experience and observation of reality to provide guidance, rather than obeying specific rules that would prevent one from finding things out for oneself. This means that we do not make value judgments based on our opinion of how things ought to be, but rather we accept the nature of things as they are and try to understand why they work that way. We try to work within nature, while continually striving for higher consciousness and fuller experience of all levels of reality. It is partly about honoring nature, and partly about transcending it.
For example, some people are vegetarians because they feel that it is wrong to kill a conscious being to sustain ones own life. Others sense a different form of consciousness in plant life and are led by this to the conclusion that it is necessary for life to destroy other life in order to sustain itself. In order to avoid dying of starvation (or guilt) one somehow must make peace with the idea that every day several lives must be sacrificed to nourish one. This does not exempt us from the responsibility to be conscious, to behave in a compassionate way, and to avoid doing unnecessary harm, but it does imply that no sweeping good/evil judgment can be made regarding the issue of the killing of other beings. When we have come to peace with the idea that this greatest of all conflicts cannot be decisively resolved once and for all, this sense of ethical complexity tends to extend to many other issues.
Many establishment religions tend to regard sexuality as base, as merely physical, as taboo. Wicca differs in this because it sees humanity as one with the divine, and the divine nature as being expressed by and within its creation. We seek union with the divine both within ourselves and through others.
Looking around us we say, “Sexuality must be holy and magickal because it creates new life from a mystical union between opposite energies.” And we have based our whole approach to the sacred on this idea. We have based much of our approach to magick on this idea, and indeed sex between two partners who share focus, understanding, and unity of intent can BE a magickal act, giving birth to new realities of many kinds. In recognition that each physical thing has a spiritual nature, sex becomes a thing to be approached with reverence, sacred in itself without a need for any other justification.
It is felt by some that sexuality is only acceptable in the context of a romantic and emotional union. Implied within this is that that union be exclusive and permanent. This is a denial of the nature of many beings, for a variety of reasons, and an attitude that, when imposed on others, leads to many painful psychological problems as one tries to fit into a prescribed mode of “proper” feelings and behavior and, failing, begins to feel wrong, dirty, and shameful. To which we witches say, “Woah, relax. Everybody is different. An it harm none, do as thou wilt.”
This does not, to me, seem to imply that we can then go about wantonly taking advantage of others for our own gratification. That would run counter to the idea of honoring the divine in our partners. It also does not imply that we have any obligation whatsoever to engage in a binding state of union with that person, that particular channel of divine energy. Ordinary compassion and caring for them both as a human and as a spirit necessitates respect, tenderness and giving, but not locks and chains. It allows us to give love and pleasure, and to take it, while respecting the independence and emotional autonomy of the individual with whom a long-term union may not be appropriate or desirable.
Because we deal in multiple levels of reality, and because we recognize these levels as not individuated stages so much as an infinite gradient, it must be recognized that there will be different levels of divine experience available. It is possible to use sexuality and orgasm to transcend ones perceived limitations, reach higher states of personal consciousness, to attain greater psychic awareness, to work magick, to develop telepathic communication and dissolve barriers between oneself and ones chosen partner, be that partner long or short-term. Orgasm is the climax and release of the energies involved, but not necessarily the point for its own sake, fun as it may be.
Does the experience of orgasm and the erotic as sacred improve the world in any way? I think so. It resanctifies an act that has been desecrated by repression and exploitation by turns for centuries. It allows us to see our bodies as vessels of divine power and love, to bestow that love on whom we choose, and to feel good about it. Feeling good about who you are makes it easier to improve yourself, and to reach out to others with strong, open hands, a clear mind, and a joyous self love that then extends to the rest of the world, which is as sacred as you are. Plus people are just happier and more relaxed when they are getting well laid! You're damn right its important. It removes the alienation of shame and anger, recognizing that our sexuality will not change or go away simply because it is condemned by another person, by a whole society, religion, world. That condemnation(which stems from repressed passions itself)is more hurtful and damaging to individuals and society than any amount of playful promiscuity between consenting partners could ever be.
It seems to me that pagan sexuality does allow for greater intimacy between long-term partners than conventional attitudes to sex. Because we do not relegate it to a mere physical experience, but strive to unite on all levels, emotional, mental and spiritual as well, it seems to give greater depth to both the relationship and to the sexual experience itself. It implies a recognition of equality and oneness that is not possible in mere bodily fucking, even if the fucking couple happen to love each other very much. The unbridgeable separateness that is insistently imposed and maintained by such an attitude does not allow for the mystic states of union that a witch seeks with their soul mate.
This brings up the question of what happens when the two disparate types fall in love and want to get it on. He sees the Goddess in his lover and she sees no more than a man, or she worships him as the human face of her God and he considers this blasphemous. When one strives for tantric transcendence of physical boundaries through a sacred joining that takes place on all levels, and the other sees it as a mere exercise, or outlet, or even an expression of love, but a necessarily incomplete one, what happens? Needs must this detract from the physical/emotional experience of the one or the mystical/religious experience of the other? Well, no. She will still get intimate with a man she really loves, he will still touch the Face of the Goddess, but they will each be in a separate world from the other. There will be a gap in their relationship and in their understanding of each other, but then, there generally is in relationships anyway, isn’t there? And the rejected Goddess will wait, a little wistfully, for Her beloved, who seeks Her far away, to recognize Her. And perhaps He eventually will.

9 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello my Beloved. This is your provocation calling ^_^

This means that we do not make value judgments based on our opinion of how things ought to be, but rather we accept the nature of things as they are and try to understand why they work that way.

There is certainly value in this perspective, and I value the complementary energy that your perspective supplies to my own experience.

This idea of simply understanding and going with nature (or a "state of nature") isn't always sufficient in terms of progressing and transcending. The emphasis of traditional paganism, in the vast majority of its forms across the globe, was to maintain the status quo. Recognize the cycles, keep them going, keep the tribe together and unified, keep the seasons going, keep the land fertile. Keep the king on his throne, the women in the kitchen, and the slaves in their hovels.

(Which, granted, is also a significant difference between paganism and Neo-Paganism... the idea of magic as an actual spiritual path is a relatively recent one. To a large degree, it is defensible to suggest that paganism was essentially secular)

Christianity entered this scene to say "actually, y'know, the status quo kinda' sucks ass. Slavery sucks as. War sucks ass. The position of women sucks ass. The condition of orphans and widows, of the poor and the prisoner sucks ass." This necessarily requires a value judgement to be made, and making those value judgements leads to both spiritual and social progress. Understand the why of things so as to "test everything and hold fast to that which is good" while knowing what needs to be changed and why.

Which is where Christianity is both infinitely idealistic but also ruthlessly realistic as only idealism can foster. The prime example is the Beatitudes:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5:1-12)

We sort of take this vision of the world for granted now that we've been hearing it for 2000 years. But when it was spoken, it was extremely radical (and when taken seriously, it still is) and a direct inversion of the way the world functioned at the time (and still does). And with ruthless realism, Jesus spends the most time at the end acknowledging that anybody who lives as though this ideal was true is going to be persecuted and is going to suffer and is going to die for it.

Of course, the Beatitudes are a value judgement on the society and human nature in general. But value judgements are inescapable anyways. The idea that it is better to maintain the cycle than to push forward is a value judgement. The question, then, is which sorts of value judgements are preferable.

For my part, I'm coming around to recognize the validity of the spiral as a geometric subtext. The combination of the circle and the line, the spiral recognizes both the inescapability of cyclical nature and the need for progress, justice, and transcendence.

Regarding sex itself, I think it is worth reiterrating what I said in person and on my LJ, being that I don't think we're necessarily talking about two different things. Rather, we seem to be approaching the same thing from two different perspectives.

When I read what you say, what I hear for the most part is that what matters is not so much the sex in itself, but the quality of the relationship that the sex expresses. That is more or less what I was getting at when I said that sex in itself is not as important nor as intrinsically spiritual. It is the quality of the relationship that makes the world better, not necessarily any energy fissioning off of the orgasm.

Where we seem to differ is on where the "lines" are placed and any ritual significance that sex in itself has. Christianity is a little more restrictive on the duration and exclusivity of these unions, I think, as an exhortation to honesty.

Basically, if we are not being ruthlessly honest with ourselves, it is easy and tempting to give promiscuity a spiritual gloss. This is a call more for intentionality than a particular formulation, which is to work against fornication (being the use of others for one's own sexual gratification). But then one can also fornicate in marriage, and the New Testament had a lot more to say about what happens once you are married. Again, it was speaking to a particular zeitgeist, but certainly has relevance to the disposability of marriages in our society. The spiral re-emerges.

Christianity doesn't ascribe ritual significance to sex in part as a reaction against the temple prostitution of the day which was part and parcel of an abusive status quo religion which Christianity was making contrary value judgements regarding. But on a deeper theological level, it doesn't because the basic Ascending and Descending principles of our spiritual understanding aren't masculine and feminine. Indeed, properly considered, we understand that God transcends and includes any attributes that might be ascribed to masculine and feminine (which, as I have maintained, simply aren't demonstrated to be necessarily masculine or feminine). Sex loses significance for us as the tantric union of masculine and feminine because in Christ there is no male or female. What it takes on is the relational union of two complementary individuals, the you and the me specifically.

(Which is another one of the interesting contributions of Christianity to the West: the acceptance of marriage as the equal union between two lovers, rather than as a largely arranged matter of property.)

But while I may not agree with the idea of sex as the ritual union of generic masculine and feminine any more than you may not agree with Jesus of Nazareth being the unique incarnation of God Who serves as the means by which we are reconciled to God (remember, this dynamic of respect and disagreement works both ways; that Jesus stuff is just as necessary and intrinsic to the core of my being), I do very much respect that you believe it and value it. Because you value it, because it is important to you, I respect it and take it very seriously.

She will still get intimate with a man she really loves, he will still touch the Face of the Goddess, but they will each be in a separate world from the other. There will be a gap in their relationship and in their understanding of each other, but then, there generally is in relationships anyway, isn’t there? And the rejected Goddess will wait, a little wistfully, for Her beloved, who seeks Her far away, to recognize Her. And perhaps He eventually will.

Myabe, maybe not. But perhaps this dilema is a false one... Perhaps this divergent viewpoints are complimentary, just as the circle and the line, and they unite to create a whole without necessarily syncretizing, forming the spiral. One emphasizes the specific, the other the general, and in the act, both forms of union are satsified, creating one integrated whole.

9:47 AM  
Blogger idnami said...

The comparison between the eucharist and tantric union has been made already by a commenter on corys blog, and i think it is an apt one in the sense of communing with the divine through a physical medium (the host) and taking it inside of oneself. The vaginal association of the chalice is of course much older than christianity, as is the idea of the sacrificed god being consumed by his people.
i think the rest of a thelemites observations on the eucharist may be a little esoteric for most christians, and possibly not well recieved, as i have no doubt that he intended.
i was saying last night in a private conversation with my priest, that the sex act is the ritual enactment of the actual relationship between two people, in the same sense that attending and participating in a church service is the ritual enactment of the christian faith. in this sense eucharist and mutual orgasm serve the same purpose. in this sense also, neither is strictly necessary to the core state they represent. many couples are happily married and engage in sexual union rarely, if ever. Just so, many good christians do not go to church. cory disagrees with me on much of this, of course.

4:18 PM  
Blogger idnami said...

the christian rites are packed with hidden symbolism of many kinds, but i find it takes a certain type of person to want to see the deeper meaning behind the symbolism. for some, a cigar is only ever a cigar, and this is well and good. its not occult if everybody gets it! there are layers of depth to everything, and layers beyond what you have seen in this, with subtler meaning.

11:10 PM  
Blogger idnami said...

"i am certain that much of christian spirituality has been lifted from various other mystery traditions."
i think that all traditions which have touched have influenced each other in some way. having built the new on ancient foundations does not render either the old tradition or the new one impure or in any way invalid, but strengthens each. many people are threatened by that idea, as they view christianity as something utterly separate and alien to other religions, whereas those who can see and make use of the correspondences between them benefit not only from a broader understanding, but also greater peace of mind as well.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Energy is a curious thing. Magical energy doubly so. Why is it that the decisions we make do not always affect our lives the way we want them too? Usually it is as simple as your own mind holding onto an old idea that is contrary to your decision. Sometimes it is a matter of someone else making a decision contrary to your own.

In magical workings, it can sometimes be painfully obvious to a worker when some outside force/person has decided to counter your energies with their own. Sometimes that outside force is not even aware that it is creating the opposing energies.
Take James Randi for instance.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

No one has been able to prove to them undeniably the power of their own spiritual energies. Partly because a lot of the people that try are flakes. But partly also because the intensly held beliefs of Randi and his organization are constantly working against all those that come to them to demonstrate their abilities. The whole lot of them probably have no idea how powerful their disbelief is in making others fail where normally they would succeed.

That said, our own personal barriers generally will account for >90% of any failures or hesitations. We all have our own battles to fight. Myself no less than any other.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard sexual interpretations of the Eucharist. I've also heard that the floorplan of churches is supposedly based on womens' reproductive systems.

The problem with such interpretations is ahistoricity: while a potentially valid reading on to the material, it is still a reading on to the material rather than a reading deriving from the material. It is ignoring the historical development of such things in favor of an interpretation pulled out of the blue, usually as suits a particular purpose.

Regarding the Eucharist, the simplest level of explanation is that we use a cup because Jesus used a cup. Actually, in most churches now, it is more common to find us using little 2-finger shot glasses. Maybe we stole the Eucharist from bars! Had Jesus used a juice box, perhaps one would be forced to read a different interpretation onto it.

This simplest level leads to an interesting conclusion when compared to the criticism that we are just plagiarizing. If Christianity is plagiarizing the ritual consupmtion of a deity, then it was an act of plagiarism by Jesus, who instituted the Eucharist. But by saying "this is my body" and "this is my blood", then the implication would be that Jesus considered Himself to be a deity. As a good Jewish monotheist, that would have to mean He considered Himself to be the God.

At any rate, the Eucharist itself has its roots in the Jewish Passover. In fact, Christ and Christianity have their roots in Judaism more than anything else. Though we affirm Christ as the universal Saviour, His teachings, life, significance, death and resurrection, uniqueness as Messiah and His universality itself are all rooted in Jewish beliefs, theology and Prophetic expectation. The first great controversy of the Church was whether or not a convert had to become Jewish first in order to become a Christian.

The attempt to interpret the origins and rituals of Christianity divorced from its own history and its Jewish roots may prove richly interesting for people of other faith traditions, but it runs into the wall that it is simply not the Christianity observed by Christians. It may be valid to say that Christians are simply wrong about Christianity, but nevertheless, it is a view that is derived entirely outside of our own theology, history, understanding, adherence, rituals, doctrines and even experience.

Such a statement may be valid, though I believe it is deficient insofar as exempting history weakens the foundation for a reasonable argument. I can acknowledge this validity more deeply in a person without an axe to grind, who isn't trying to make an argument, and who is simply of a different faith tradition attempting to wrestle with this figure Who stands in such epic proportions over history.

Where it falls into irrelevance is when it is used for criticism, on account that it swings in awfully close to a straw-man argument. It creates a fictional version of Christianity and proceeds to declare that Christianity is itself a fiction. I mean, I agree completely that your version of Christianity is a fiction fabricated from ancient myths and Roman mystery cults.

At any rate, cobbling together fictional Christianities out of novel ahistorical interpretations and checklists of the most superficial similarities to other religions is insufficient for genuine interreligious dialogue. Perhaps one is not interested in genuine interreligious dialogue, but one should at least be aware that in cobbling together fictional Christianities, one is talking neither to us nor about us. They are rather talking to themselves about their own beliefs.

7:46 AM  
Blogger idnami said...

i think it is safe to say that your interpretation of the eucharist is not the one commonly accepted by the practitioners of this rite, and leave it at that. for you and i may read what we will into it, and experience a broader view of that tradition and our own thereby, but you are not going to convince anyone who has spent their whole life thinking of it a certain way.
i very much like your explaination of the isms. that is a very succinct and even handed way to express those concepts and their values. thank you.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

regardless of that, prior to the developement of the christian mass, in the theophagous communion of the followers of mithras, these following words are attributed to mithras "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and am I commingled with him, shall not be saved" these words of mithras sound very similar to what jesus christ is quoted as saying, and before jesus is reputed to have said them as well.

The origins of this rite in Mithraism is a point of scholarly debate. Mithraism was introduced into the Empire in the 1st century BC, but only really arrived towards the end of the 1st century AD with the return of soldiers who served in oriental campaigns. It is worth noting here as well that Mithraism was exclusively male and, with Mithras as a warrior deity, was particularly popular with soldiers.

A reasonable implication, and a definite point of debate amongst all the academic papers I'm reading right now, is that Roman Mithraism may have actually adopted certain Christian liturgical forms. The most prevalent counter-argument is that such was not so because of fundamental doctrinal/theological/conceptual differences between the two (for example, the rites and symbology of Mithraic and Christian baptisms, the latter rooted in Jewish ritual purification and the former involving having bull guts spilled on you while you lay in a pit).

So this argument of yours is presented more absolutely than the scholarship permits.

and what are the roots of judaism? it has been noted that judaism was a developement from the zoroastrian religion.

It was not likely that Judaism developed from Zoroastrianism (any more than it developed from Atenism, another superficially plausible explanation), but rather that it was influenced by Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian captivity and Persian liberation. I personally have no problem with this, as the connection is implicitly recognized when Matthew portrays Zoroastrian astrologers seeing in in the infant Jesus their champion of Ahura Mazda.

when looking at the developement of christian theology, rituals and doctrines it is more complete to look at the greater historical context rather than just the offically sanctioned history that christians seem to prefer.

Your invocation of blindness or conspiracy is misplaced. I am not talking about the "officially sanctioned" history. I am talking about the actual historical development of these beliefs and practices from an academic perspective. Drafting up checklists of superficially similar attributes as though Christianity had no historical development is simply poor scholarship.

like the christian mass trying to hide its shame of its dualistic sexual symbolism with a veil of neuter.

As I said, that is an interesting interpretation, but not a particularly relevant one when discussing Christianity as practiced by Christians. It has nothing to do with hiding a sexual shame: your interpretation just isn't what it means to us. Nor is it a matter of having to convince those of us who have looked at it one way our whole lives: again, that just isn't the meaning for us. One may certainly look at it that way by reading their own symbol structure onto it, but that just isn't how we look at it.

7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i stand corrected.

No worries.

it sure isnt how the christians look at it. however just cause they dont, doesnt mean it isnt there.

Actually, by definition it does mean exactly that. Refer to my response to Mandi's "SpiRitual Intercourse" post.

arent christians allowed to think sexually in terms of their spirituality?

Some certainly do in regards to bridal mysticism and whatnot. I tends not to and that bridal mystic trend is a relatively minor one. Again, refering back to Mandi's post, it simply does not resonate with me and probably doesn't with most Christians. Furthermore, in some cases, it actually looks to be more like a detriment than a fully bodies spirituality. In reading Margery Kempe, I was struck by how unlike the other Mediaeval women mystics she was... Though the most bridally mystic of the ones I was reading, she also was the one who looked most like she was suffering a pyschological illness. This isn't to say that sexual spirituality is a psychological illness, but when you read Kempe, it is quite easy to see how her brand didn't appear to make her any healthier.

however to blind oneself, due to faith requirements, to sexual spirituality seems just as much a folly to me.

What if I'm "blinding myself" by it's lack of resonance to me?

i know you dont beleive there are these sexual inferences in the christian mass to which i refer xian, but i see them there, others do as well.

Oh, I certainly acknowledge that you read them onto it. I never said I didn't.

7:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home