from
Entering the Heart of the Sun and Moon
by Khandro Déchen and Ngak'chang Rinpoche

To be published in 2007

Opening

We should not be blatant in revealing the visceral fire of relationships that are volcanic in their intimacy.

When we speak of our lovers, we need to be cautious with our words. The knowledge that hovers above and below the surface of mundane expression should be left unspoken. Voluptuous landscapes of feeling should be left to be inferred. We do not intend to leave anything unsaid; but Tantra needs to disrobe itself according to its own precise passion - perfectly, and with fierce grace. It is neither wise nor practical to expose the heart of this reality without creating a conducive atmosphere in which such perspectives can disport themselves with vivid elegance.

Intuition and logic, chaos and pattern; how do these words relate to romantic love? What could they signify to men and women 'falling in love'? How does the relationship of the terms within these word-pairs mirror the interface of men and women in relationship? How do these words reflect the quintessential dance of qualities within the nature of relationships between men and women? There are an extraordinary array other word-pairs beyond these, which reflect further aspects of female / male relationship. They radiate in vivid and elaborate geometries that illustrate the limitless spectrum of emotional vignettes: randomness and design; freedom and commitment; subjectivity and objectivity; gazing and scrutiny; non-rational and rational; appreciation and discernment; admiration and respect; sensitivity and strength; laterality and linearity; æsthetics and pragmatism; uncreated knowledge and active compassion; emptiness and form; wisdom display and method display. We will leave this question unanswered for a while, and return to it further on it our presentation. Leaving this question temporarily unanswered allows an atmosphere of open endedness that is vital if we are to begin to move away from some of the concretised constructs on which we may have come to rely. To travel on with a sense of uncertainty is more useful to our exploration than to take hold of specific conclusions. The tendency toward concretisation is the primary obstacle to gaining a real understanding of the unusual material we will discuss. We need to be experiential in our approach to this subtle dimension of understanding, and to allow the flavour of uncertainty to linger. So, with our first question-cluster unresolved - let us encourage this amorphous texture by venturing into another question-cluster.

What is there to be said about men and women that is beyond restrictive stereotypes? Can models exist that are not merely the product of passing historical contexts? The history of the world is peppered with evolutionary, agricultural, and climatic forces that create their own slants on what is required of human beings. So, maybe we cannot look to isolated periods within history for gender models that would allow the transformation of our current dilemmas? So is it possible that time, place, circumstances tend to contain answers only within the context of their own questions? Is there a human male-female paradigm that lies beyond the individual cultures of the world? These questions are worthy of consideration at this point.

Both Eastern and Western cultures have evolved models of femininity and masculinity; but such models would all seem open to criticism - no matter how socially functional they have appeared. Often the existing models are seen to fall short of the reality of what a human being could really be, and none appear to provide answers for everyone. Often these cultural, religious, or spiritual models become cages in which we trap ourselves, or in which we seek to trap others. Some of these models are highly simplistic, and seem to be designed to maintain social order according to whatever culture has devised them. Some seem to have been useful for periods of time, but would appear to have become atrophied in the modern world. We can look back at these male and female modes of identification and admire their creative and colourful qualities, but it seems difficult to relate them to the world as we know it. So what can be said about men and women that does not create an experiential cage for them as living beings?

Some systems of understanding gender reflect a vested patriarchal interest which is highly obvious. These systems can be seen for what they are and rejected; but there are other systems, even some espoused by feminist women, which are simply adaptations of phalocentric models. Such systems are not without their appeal to both men and women, but according to Tantra we need to question the patterns of the world within a non-dual(1) understanding, rather than continually evolving new patterns on the basis of previous patterns. We are fortunate to live in an age where women have begun to reject the phalocentric constructs that surround ideas about male and female experience. Such constructs have been seen to be a prison not only for women, but for the men who are spuriously 'advantaged' by them. We live in a bewildering period of history. We live in times of extraordinary heterodoxy, and are bombarded by new concepts and ideologies about what it is to be human. We live in a time at which our choices have been influenced by several generations of women, and men, who have refused to be trapped in distorted and alienated sexual models. We live in an atmosphere of psychological exploration and continual social change. Transpersonal psychology has begun to explore new models for men and women, in which men and women are free to evolve their own independent structures. The pool for these ideas is the rich well of archetypes from the mythology and fable that exist in the ancient cultures of the world. They combine these colourful antiquarian clues with recent psychological knowledge, and generate new patterns as an on-going experiment with what it is to be alive.

With regard to the imposition of gender attributes, it is obviously preferable for men and women to create their own models. It is obviously a way of proceeding that breaks new ground, and opens up possibilities for men and women to learn from the interface that such new models produce. But according to the view of Tantra, these models are doomed to become prisons in the same way that the old models were prisons. The problem with creating new models of what it is to be male or female, is that such models are always 'convex' - they are always an imposition. They always represent a smaller version of what we are. Convex definitions of gender are always limiting. They are always limiting because they are defined. No matter how broad and subtle the definition - a definition, by definition, is always a definition. A definition is something brought within limits. A definition is a 'defined area' within a limitless undefined space. The 'limitless space of our being' cannot be defined; all we can do is to point beyond our current frames of reference. So, how is that possible? In what way can we point beyond our current frames of reference? The answer is that we cannot. We cannot do that, but we can invoke the spatial dimension itself to point back at ourselves. We can allow ourselves to be defined as 'concave'. But what does that mean?

In contrast with the exploration of new definitions, the Tantric approach is somewhat radical. Tantric practice involves opening out into 'concave definition'; that is to say: allowing ourselves to be defined by everything that is 'other'. We practice this by relating with a gender-specific experience of the entire unbounded expanse of reality. For men, 'the gender experience' of the universe is female. For women, 'the gender experience' of the universe is male. For yogis, phenomenal reality is female. For yoginis, phenomenal reality is male.

A 'concave definition' of what it is that constitutes masculinity or femininity, is a definition in which our 'maleness' or 'femaleness' is fundamentally beyond question. For anyone who is in doubt about their sexuality, this might come as something of a relief. We do not need to be cajoled by modern day savants of sexuality into believing that we have to 'get in touch with our masculinity or femininity' - it is already there. Ideas of 'deep masculine' or 'deep feminine' are actually just deeper dungeons according to Tantra. There would seem to be no way out as long as we attempt to conform to models of any kind, with relation to experiencing ourselves. We do not have to define, or even know, what it is to be male or female, because being male or female is very simply and intrinsically what we are. This is existentially and experientially evident to anyone who practises Tantra. There are no criteria to which the Tantrika has to conform. If you are a yogini, a woman, that is simply what you are. If you are a yogi, a man, that is simply what you are. The 'concave definition' according to inner Tantra, is that gender is simultaneously fulfilled and transformed through relationship with our environment.

In the Tantric teachings of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, there is a primary vow. The vow is that we attempt to experience the entire spectrum of external reality, either as method-display (male) or as wisdom-display (female). What do the terms method-display and wisdom-display mean? Our opening descriptions are finger paintings of inner Tantra, so we should not be too impatient about defining these terms.

We should not be blatant in revealing the visceral fire of relationships that are volcanic in their intimacy. When we speak of our lovers, we need to be cautious with our words. The knowledge that hovers above and below the surface of mundane expression should be left unspoken. Voluptuous landscapes of feeling should be left to be inferred. We do not intend to leave anything unsaid; but Tantra needs to disrobe itself according to its own precise passion - perfectly, and with fierce grace. It is neither wise nor practical to expose the heart of this reality without creating a conducive atmosphere in which such perspectives can disport themselves with vivid elegance.

It is obviously not easy to relate to the vows of view that exist within inner Tantra. A vow of view is the commitment to see or apprehend external or internal reality according to Tantra. Such vows can include the poetic acceptance of a deiform appearance as one's real identity(2). It is obviously difficult to see oneself as an enlightened being - but at least there are the set guidelines of the visualisation with its meanings and ritual processes. But to deliberately see in a different way without concrete guidelines is another matter altogether. To see the entire fields of one's senses as either 'maleness' or 'femaleness' is not at all a straightforward procedure. It is not a practice with specific rules that can be followed. There is literally no 'way' in which a man or a woman could follow such an oblique directive. However, it can be attempted; and, if one has the high energy of a healthy romantic relationship, it can prove less difficult than the concretely well defined practises of Tantra. So how could a person approach such a practice? An answer to this would not be helpful in logical linear terms - only in intuitive lateral terms: one simply opens oneself to the poetry of what is suggested in terms of living the view. One simply allows oneself to be caught by surprise by the fact that the world can magically display gender attributes. This 'opening' and 'allowing' are not immediately obvious methods. They require some background, both with regard to the theory of Tantra, and with regard to what Tantra means at the level of everyday experience. How these vows of view can be attempted is an aspect of this teaching that will be explored later; but, in terms of the present discussion, we can begin by reflecting on the freedom that is allowed through letting go of 'convex definitions'. We can reflect on the powerful sense of liberation that exists in not having to conform to limited gender guide lines of any kind with relation to our individuality as beings. The rapturous visionary context of Tantra is no place for our pedestrian conventional rationale. Within this poetic paradigm we can only immerse ourselves in the efflorescence of our sense fields, and learn directly from the energy of what we are in relation to our lovers. We need to be able to encounter Tantric theory in the same way as we might encounter poetry, painting or music.

It has been said that Buddhism has much in common with science and philosophy and psychology; but whereas this is true of Sutra, Tantra cannot be confined by such tight objectifications. Tantra has more in common with art. Art, especially from the later end of the nineteenth century onward, celebrates the uncomfortable counterpoint of conflicting notions, as an exploration of human experience. Art challenges the parameters of the sensory fields, and expresses an expanded dimension of perceptual reality through the super-rational juxtaposition of from, shape, colour, texture, tone, sound, poetry and prose. Art regards paradox as a convention rather than a challenge to convention. From this perspective the relationship between men and women presents a tremendous artistic possibility - the possibility of discovering the innate undividedness of intuition and logic; chaos and pattern; randomness and design; freedom and commitment; subjectivity and objectivity; wisdom display and method display. To arrive at such a preposterous realisation we need to be able to enter the view of Tantra, as art. Within this field of intuitive openness, the paradoxical undividedness of these word-pairs relate to romantic love as enlightened dance They signify the spatial heights and passionate depths of men and women 'falling in love'

As we explore the perceptual field of romantic emotion, we will discover that the intrinsic eroticism of being plays itself out in every aspect existence. Tantra is often misconstrued as being a degraded form of spirituality which focuses on coital positions. Although Buddhist Tantra includes human sexuality, its parameters are far broader than the perverse phalocentric methodologies which deify techniques and systematic approaches to love. Buddhist Tantra is fundamentally sexual, but the sexuality it expresses concerns the coital union of existence and non existence. It explores the non-dual matrix of emptiness and form(3). It delves into the dramatic dimension of dance, in which we cannot extricate ourselves from the vast and subtle sexual embrace of each shining moment.

ARO BOOKS© 2000

BACK