FemDom, Tantric Ritual and Kali

Linked below is a rather fascinating article by a rather fascinating guy. In it he discusses the ways in which BDSM and specifically female dominance/male submission activities translate into a tantric structure, and specifically into aspects of the goddess Kali and her veneration.

It's a chewy essay. Very dense. I don't pretend to understand everything there. But it's fascinating stuff, and I thought maybe, just maybe there might be a few people in this group who have ideas, experiences or just an interest in this particular topic.

Is there even a vague chance that someone else besides me wants to talk about this stuff?

Here's the link to the article.

This is a fascinating article - thanks for posting it. I must say there is a lot here that I relate to. I am intrigued by the concept of Goddess worship and many of the ideas expressed here are reflected in the kind of play that I engage in, which is in turn reflected in the stories I write for this site.

So much of the language here I relate to. The Goddess as destroyer/creator, the idea of taking amusement and pleasure inthe exercise fo power and dealing out punishment and reward. The recognition of Goddess as a manifestation of pwer and being atuned to her own inspiration. A tool of liberation, enlightenment and creativity, which is something I have first hand experience of.

I can also relate to the male figure of sacrifice. The dedication, sincerity and commitment that is needed for complete surrender. I like the expression used here "this is submissiion to the Mistress (Goddess), the complete abandonement to directing and guidance, challenge and reward..." is a very accurate description of how I approach the kind of BDSM play that I enjoy. The idea of being a plaything or entertainment for the delight of Goddess.

I've only read it very quickly and, as you say it is quite dense and complex, but for me personally there were such a lot of resonances with what I believe and my own feelings of submission.

As you rightly say, a fascinating article.

SlaveNano said:

This is a fascinating article - thanks for posting it. I must say there is a lot here that I relate to. I am intrigued by the concept of Goddess worship and many of the ideas expressed here are reflected in the kind of play that I engage in, which is in turn reflected in the stories I write for this site.

So much of the language here I relate to. The Goddess as destroyer/creator, the idea of taking amusement and pleasure inthe exercise fo power and dealing out punishment and reward. The recognition of Goddess as a manifestation of pwer and being atuned to her own inspiration. A tool of liberation, enlightenment and creativity, which is something I have first hand experience of.

I can also relate to the male figure of sacrifice. The dedication, sincerity and commitment that is needed for complete surrender. I like the expression used here "this is submissiion to the Mistress (Goddess), the complete abandonement to directing and guidance, challenge and reward..." is a very accurate description of how I approach the kind of BDSM play that I enjoy. The idea of being a plaything or entertainment for the delight of Goddess.

I've only read it very quickly and, as you say it is quite dense and complex, but for me personally there were such a lot of resonances with what I believe and my own feelings of submission.

As you rightly say, a fascinating article.

Click to expand...

Greetings! and thanks for your input.

If it's not too personal a question, do you feel that you have actually augmented your own spiritual growth through this sort of approach? And does your Mistress see this as a spiritual path as well as a sexual one?

Interesting article.

Let me say first off, by way of full disclosure, that I'm not a particular fan of tantra. I'm no feminist, but I've been influenced by enough feminist ideas to view the sort of complementarianism assumed by tantra with suspicion.

Having said that, I wish the author had addressed his issues with BDSM more explicitly. It's difficult to assess his argument, which I take to be the necessity of developing femdom-ish rituals for spiritual practice and goddess worship that avoid the problems of BDSM, without knowing what it is that he's arguing against.

I also question this statement:

it is especially significant, for example, that within the confines of typical ritual dramas it is likely to be the male, the sacrifice, who is presumed to have sinned. this tells us right away that the sin and repentance aspect of the rite is predominantly a facet of the *male* in ritual, contained in the details of his sacrificial action. the liberative opportunity afforded the woman in the rite is that of completely identifying with Sakti in a direct manner unimpeded by her personal limitations.

Click to expand...

He seems to be saying that "sin" or impediments to liberation, are a distinction of maleness. Women do not require the working through these limitations by means of sacrificial surrender because they can, by dint of their essential femaleness, attain union directly with the goddess. I'm not sure I see the connection between estrogen and spiritual maturity that he seems to be assuming.

I'm also curious about the role of the audience. How do they participate in the liberative function of the rite? Are their differences in the way this is done between men and women observers? He alludes to their participation so perfunctorily that it's difficult to see what he has in mind for them.

Eh, my dislike for tantra is coming through more than I intended, but hopefully I still manage to add to the conversation.

Arkhilokhus, thanks for your thoughts. I'm now deep into friday night mayhem and can't address your ideas with the proper attention at the moment, but I appreciate your input and will come back and think more about it when I have more time.

blessings.

unpredictablebijou said:

Greetings! and thanks for your input.

If it's not too personal a question, do you feel that you have actually augmented your own spiritual growth through this sort of approach? And does your Mistress see this as a spiritual path as well as a sexual one?

Click to expand...

Hi. No that's not a problem, I'm quite happy to talk about this. The relationship I have with Goddess I see very much as a spiritual journey not a sexual one and I know she would see it that way as well. It is a path into servitude where you surrender control and give everything up to Goddess, and part of that surrendering is control of your sexual desire to her. Also, it is one where some of the mental effort has to come from the slave - it cannot be forced on someone there has to be some opennes to mental surrender to get that meeting of minds.

Goddess did give me some text from the Bhagavad Gita which describes it quite well, "Those who are free from false prestige, illusion false association, who understand the eternal are done with lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person". The text continues ..."One has to develop spiritual knowledge....and when one has an understanding of things as they really are, he becomes free from all dual conceptions such as happiness and distress, plreasure and pain. He becomes full of knowedge, the it is possible for him to surrender to the Supreme Personaility of Goddess."

I will pass on the link you have given to Goddess. Like me, she will find the ideas in that text quite fascinating - in many ways an articulation of what she does in session. I believe she would associate strongly with the Sakti/Kiva figure

The link with BDSM is that the ritual - bindings, fetish dress, the punishments - create an atmosphere in which makes it easier for the slave to surrender. It also subjects the slave to challenges and trials that he must pass to reach a new level of understanding. The idea of a duality of worlds, Her world and the other world, is also very important to the relationship I have with Goddess. I first submitted to Goddess as a pro-domme, though I would consider that to be largely irrelevant now, but it is not a lifestyle relationship so there has to be some sense of passing from another world into her domain. In many ways this enhances the relationship as for that time you are in session you can submit completely detached from any of clutter of day to day living.

There have been Goddesses and women of great spiritual knowledge in every culture going (especially pre-Christian) and I do see Goddess as being an heir to such knowledge. I don't mean that in the sense of a great monotheistic deity - but that she is a person of great spiritual awareness and creativity. In my view most of the world's major religions, especially those descending from Abraham like Chrisitianity, Islam and Judaism have all deliberately supressed the idea of the feminine as a divine figure by creating stuctures where only men can act as spiritual mediators.

Acting through BDSM and its rituals and punishments Goddess can help slaves reach some kind of realisation about their true selves. So, yeah, as you can see, I very much see what I do as a spiritual journey through surrendering to a supreme feminine figure and not just a sexual one.

Arkhilokhus said:

Interesting article.

Let me say first off, by way of full disclosure, that I'm not a particular fan of tantra. I'm no feminist, but I've been influenced by enough feminist ideas to view the sort of complementarianism assumed by tantra with suspicion.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you're defining "tantra" so I don't know if I agree with you or not. That term covers a great deal of ground, and is widely misused.

Even Yronwode uses the term "neo-tantra" in this essay, and I'm assuming that he's using it the way most westerners do, as an umbrella term for "sacred sexual activity."

I see that area as relatively genderless, personally. Or at least it can be, depending on one's approach.

Having said that, I wish the author had addressed his issues with BDSM more explicitly. It's difficult to assess his argument, which I take to be the necessity of developing femdom-ish rituals for spiritual practice and goddess worship that avoid the problems of BDSM, without knowing what it is that he's arguing against.

I also question this statement:


He seems to be saying that "sin" or impediments to liberation, are a distinction of maleness. Women do not require the working through these limitations by means of sacrificial surrender because they can, by dint of their essential femaleness, attain union directly with the goddess. I'm not sure I see the connection between estrogen and spiritual maturity that he seems to be assuming.

I'm also curious about the role of the audience. How do they participate in the liberative function of the rite? Are their differences in the way this is done between men and women observers? He alludes to their participation so perfunctorily that it's difficult to see what he has in mind for them.

Eh, my dislike for tantra is coming through more than I intended, but hopefully I still manage to add to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and thank you for your input.

I did find that phrase unclear; the idea of "avoiding the problems of BDSM", but I figured it wasn't that big a deal since he really didn't make any further reference to it. It didn't seem like his main point.

I believe his views on the "inherent" natures of men and women are classically tantric, in the Tibetan view. I don't see it as "women inherently have a clue and men do not," but I've run across references that explain it somewhat biologically.

I'm not asserting this as true; I'm still thinking about it, but the classic Tibetan (and some Hindu sects as well) tantric assertion goes something like, "Women have a certain automatic tendency to be self-aware, by virtue of their ability to menstruate, conceive and give birth. Men do not have that natural doorway. Therefore, a woman can reach enlightenment without interacting sexually, through other means, but men must by necessity interact with women to fully understand themselves."

One sees this in cultural adulthood rituals, as an example: young women have an automatic indication of their transition into adulthood in the event of their first menses, but young men must undergo more artificial initiations to bring them into an understanding of their change in status.

As an example, Joseph Campbell asserted that this was the reason that so many men's initiation rites involve ceremonial bloodletting of some kind; it was a parallel to the female version of adulthood.

Maybe it's not so much that "men are particularly bad and sinful" but more that men are, for some reason, particularly skilled at the mindset and nature that is necessary to become that expiatory figure both for their own processes and as a symbolic redeemer for a group. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

As to the audience, I'm thinking that maybe the Rite functions as a theatrical catalyst, in the more classical sense of theater, where the audience is very much a participant in the rite. More like going to church and witnessing the miracle of the Eucharist than going to a theater to see a play. Ideally, it is a congregation of participants rather than an audience of passive viewers.

Just some thoughts. I do approach sacred sexuality as a more genderless activity than that which is outlined in this essay; I see this idea of fem dom and its potential as a sacred act as only one aspect of the Tantric Rites, albeit a fascinating one...

SlaveNano said:

Goddess did give me some text from the Bhagavad Gita which describes it quite well, "Those who are free from false prestige, illusion false association, who understand the eternal are done with lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person". The text continues ..."One has to develop spiritual knowledge....and when one has an understanding of things as they really are, he becomes free from all dual conceptions such as happiness and distress, plreasure and pain. He becomes full of knowedge, the it is possible for him to surrender to the Supreme Personaility of Goddess."

Click to expand...

This is a beautiful quote, and one I value myself, though I hadn't applied it specifically to this topic. Lovely idea.

The idea of a duality of worlds, Her world and the other world, is also very important to the relationship I have with Goddess. I first submitted to Goddess as a pro-domme, though I would consider that to be largely irrelevant now, but it is not a lifestyle relationship so there has to be some sense of passing from another world into her domain. In many ways this enhances the relationship as for that time you are in session you can submit completely detached from any of clutter of day to day living.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. I've generally taught that entrance into any room where there will be sexual interaction should be treated as entrance into a temple, and into sacred space. And certainly the transition from normal reality into the specific domain of the Divine brings a certain altered state, one in which the activities, ideas and symbols become more powerful and active within the subconscious.

Combined with the altered states, like endorphin rushes, brought on by the activities themselves, it can be a powerful piece of "reprogramming" that works on the deepest and most spiritual parts of the self.

There have been Goddesses and women of great spiritual knowledge in every culture going (especially pre-Christian) and I do see Goddess as being an heir to such knowledge. I don't mean that in the sense of a great monotheistic deity - but that she is a person of great spiritual awareness and creativity. In my view most of the world's major religions, especially those descending from Abraham like Chrisitianity, Islam and Judaism have all deliberately supressed the idea of the feminine as a divine figure by creating stuctures where only men can act as spiritual mediators.

Acting through BDSM and its rituals and punishments Goddess can help slaves reach some kind of realisation about their true selves. So, yeah, as you can see, I very much see what I do as a spiritual journey through surrendering to a supreme feminine figure and not just a sexual one.

Click to expand...

You're very articulate about this; it sounds like you are truly living out the concepts he's discussing in the essay. I really admire that, and it's clear that your Goddess is both wise and very conscious of the deeper value of what she does.

Thanks for your response. I hope you don’t mind if I use some of the points here for jumping off points for a more wide-ranging discussion.

unpredictablebijou said:

I'm not sure how you're defining "tantra" so I don't know if I agree with you or not. That term covers a great deal of ground, and is widely misused.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Although it does seem to me that the gender issues are common to many strands of tantra. My issue is that assigning traits to a particular member of a divine couple, and thereby genderizing human traits that are not naturally sex-based, perpetuates gender stereotypes that have harmful elements. As an example, it is often asserted that men have the role in a couple, due to being in some way Siva, of remaining impassive and centered in response to the emotional turbulence of the woman. The result, I believe, is to solidify the image of men as "strong and silent" and to deny them the emotional expression given to women. But this sort of complementarianism is something I fight in my religious tradition, too ("male headship", etc.); it’s far from just a tantra thing, unfortunately.

unpredictablebijou said:

I'm not asserting this as true; I'm still thinking about it, but the classic Tibetan (and some Hindu sects as well) tantric assertion goes something like, "Women have a certain automatic tendency to be self-aware, by virtue of their ability to menstruate, conceive and give birth. Men do not have that natural doorway. Therefore, a woman can reach enlightenment without interacting sexually, through other means, but men must by necessity interact with women to fully understand themselves."

Click to expand...

This is part of what I have trouble understanding. What does menstruation and childbirth have to do with being self-aware? For the life of me, I can’t see the connection.

unpredictablebijou said:

One sees this in cultural adulthood rituals, as an example: young women have an automatic indication of their transition into adulthood in the event of their first menses, but young men must undergo more artificial initiations to bring them into an understanding of their change in status.

Click to expand...

I’m more explicitly Jungian on this point. The relationship between child and mother is fundamentally different for boys and girls. That’s why men have to struggle with mommy issues. I suppose spiritualizing this difference makes sense within the context of Goddess worship, although I do feel it doesn’t rise above the level of psychoanalysis. In terms of spirituality, all this sort of work is more preparing the altar than anything.

Having said that, I happily concede that FemDom could play a positive role in men working through those particular issues.

unpredictablebijou said:

As to the audience, I'm thinking that maybe the Rite functions as a theatrical catalyst, in the more classical sense of theater, where the audience is very much a participant in the rite. More like going to church and witnessing the miracle of the Eucharist than going to a theater to see a play. Ideally, it is a congregation of participants rather than an audience of passive viewers.

Click to expand...

I think that’s partly correct. But I also notice the length Yronwode goes to specify the personal enlightenment requirements of the priestess and sacrifice. He seems, if I understand him, to be talking about a work of theurgy; Sakti and Siva become literally incarnate in the bodies of the couple, almost like possession. Perhaps in that context, it is merely being in the presence of divinity that constitutes participation?

Arkhilokhus said:

Thanks for your response. I hope you don’t mind if I use some of the points here for jumping off points for a more wide-ranging discussion.

Click to expand...

Not at all; that's what I was hoping for.

Agreed. Although it does seem to me that the gender issues are common to many strands of tantra. My issue is that assigning traits to a particular member of a divine couple, and thereby genderizing human traits that are not naturally sex-based, perpetuates gender stereotypes that have harmful elements. As an example, it is often asserted that men have the role in a couple, due to being in some way Siva, of remaining impassive and centered in response to the emotional turbulence of the woman. The result, I believe, is to solidify the image of men as "strong and silent" and to deny them the emotional expression given to women. But this sort of complementarianism is something I fight in my religious tradition, too ("male headship", etc.); it’s far from just a tantra thing, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

I do think that the language of traditional Tibetan and Hindu tantric concepts tends to come across as very gender-biased. I struggle with being a sort of apologist for that seemingly archaic approach to male and female roles.

On the other hand, if one looks closely at the iconography within these systems, there's a great deal more flexibility than is initially obvious. So many of the portrayals of divinities are distinctly androgynous, for example. And Krishna, for example, is hardly a "strong and silent" type, dancing, playing music, cross-dressing...

Sometimes I think that we have run too far the other way, in our zeal to move beyond 20th century gender bias. There were ways that gender was understood in the original systems that certainly didn't fit in with, say, the 1950's ideal of gender roles.

And I don't know, perhaps the aspect of bias in that "men are strong and silent and women are emotionally turbulent and wild" viewpoint is addressed pretty effectively by this particular model of female domination. Consider: in this context, especially early in the rite or relationship, 'Siva' is anything but strong and silent; he is weakened, vulnerable, and forced into intense and honest expression of his responses and emotions. If Sakti is doing her job correctly, she too moves out of that 'unpredictable, irrational female' role, in that she must attain absolute mastery of herself in order to rule the Rite and guide Siva's experience with strength and reason.

This is part of what I have trouble understanding. What does menstruation and childbirth have to do with being self-aware? For the life of me, I can’t see the connection.

Click to expand...

Well I'm certainly not going to argue strenuously for the viewpoint myself; mostly I was quoting the traditional view. But I do see some justification for the idea; there is an inherent initiation and spiritual mystery in those activities that must be gained some other way by men.

I'm a woman, though, so I'm sorta biased by how those activities effect me. I found pregnancy an unparalleled spiritual experience, beyond description, and I am aware of the immense power available within the topic of menses and its meaning.

What I pulled from that particular idea is not so much the "inherent enlightenment" thing as the idea of sexuality and its role in the enlightenment process of both genders. There's this implication, sometimes said in a very straightforward way in fact, that women can take a path of celibacy and still reach satori, but that men somehow need to explore themselves sexually in order to complete their own education. One finds this in some of the instructions to yogis within the Hindu tantric sects, this idea of 'o young Yogi, you can generally live almost all your lives in traditional asceticism and celibacy, but for at least one lifetime, you're going to have to find a woman and learn some things about sexuality. We're sorry about that, but that's just how it is.'

I dunno. As I say, I won't actually argue for it, but I've always thought it was a pretty interesting assertion.

I’m more explicitly Jungian on this point. The relationship between child and mother is fundamentally different for boys and girls. That’s why men have to struggle with mommy issues. I suppose spiritualizing this difference makes sense within the context of Goddess worship, although I do feel it doesn’t rise above the level of psychoanalysis. In terms of spirituality, all this sort of work is more preparing the altar than anything.

Having said that, I happily concede that FemDom could play a positive role in men working through those particular issues.

Click to expand...

Well there's certainly at least that potential value within the form, if nothing else.

I think that’s partly correct. But I also notice the length Yronwode goes to specify the personal enlightenment requirements of the priestess and sacrifice. He seems, if I understand him, to be talking about a work of theurgy; Sakti and Siva become literally incarnate in the bodies of the couple, almost like possession. Perhaps in that context, it is merely being in the presence of divinity that constitutes participation?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I certainly assume that there is a "drawing down" of the actual deities, who are then embodied in the couple, much like the Santerians consider the act of being ridden by a loa.

I suspect that both may be factors; the catharsis available to the 'congregation' through watching a mystery play, as well as the assumed idea that one is in the actual presence of the Divine.

unpredictablebijou said:

Sometimes I think that we have run too far the other way, in our zeal to move beyond 20th century gender bias. There were ways that gender was understood in the original systems that certainly didn't fit in with, say, the 1950's ideal of gender roles.

Click to expand...

Depending on how you unpack this, specifically, I might agree or disagree.

I think there are two errors. The first is believing you can function without gender roles at all (I see this mostly among Radical Feminists). The other is identifying yourself completely with your gender role. It's necessary, I think, to learn how to put on the mask while remembering it's just a mask.

unpredictablebijou said:

And I don't know, perhaps the aspect of bias in that "men are strong and silent and women are emotionally turbulent and wild" viewpoint is addressed pretty effectively by this particular model of female domination. Consider: in this context, especially early in the rite or relationship, 'Siva' is anything but strong and silent; he is weakened, vulnerable, and forced into intense and honest expression of his responses and emotions. If Sakti is doing her job correctly, she too moves out of that 'unpredictable, irrational female' role, in that she must attain absolute mastery of herself in order to rule the Rite and guide Siva's experience with strength and reason.

Click to expand...

As a thought experiment, could a M/f couple perform this Rite, with the man acting as Sakti and the woman Siva? Leaving aside the theurgic elements for the moment, and just considering the psychological elements.

unpredictablebijou said:

Well I'm certainly not going to argue strenuously for the viewpoint myself; mostly I was quoting the traditional view. But I do see some justification for the idea; there is an inherent initiation and spiritual mystery in those activities that must be gained some other way by men.

Click to expand...

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I don't think external activities are necessary at all. Both Siva and Sakti are within each of us, so to speak, and their union is internal. Again, my view is Jungian rather than Tantric; men have an anima, women an animus, and it is the task of each individual to recognize and integrate their particular complex.

On the other hand, there is something unique about pregnancy. Everything else has a parallel between men and women: you have a monthly cycle, I have a daily cycle; you make eggs, I make sperm; you menstruate, I ejaculate. But after conception, there's no more parallels. There's simply nothing that I, as a man, will ever experience that is analogous to pregnancy. So maybe there is something there that I can't see because I'm a man (as much as I hate that particular phrase).

To preface this, I am running off of old data. While I studied in the area of Hindu philosophy and theology a good bit, it has been over a decade since I've touched the stuff. So take what I say here with a grain of salt.

First, there's some serious pre-Vedic feel here. Kali is a pre-Vedic figure (from what I recall, as she was a feminised aspect of fire worship from way, way back), so that probably makes sense. Still, the talk of prakriti/purusha references the Duality concept, and, again, is either pre-Vedic or early Vedic. Brahmanic unity of consciousness more or less supplanted dualism by the vedic period, and certainly once the Upanishads came about, and post-vedic thought began to rise up.

Kali and her association with Siva have some interesting connotations, as Siva was very much vedic and post-vedic, and one of the fun theories was that Kali's subjugation, sexual dominance, and murder of Siva in artwork was backlash of pre-vedic cultures fighting back via their shared belief systems.

Anyway, the iconography of Kali standing atop Siva is very prevalent and common. Sometimes he is alive, sometimes dead, but he is almost always smiling. More interestingly, often times when he is dead, the smile is a very sly one, as if he has someone triumphed in death. This may be reverse backlash from the vedic and post-vedic cultures fighting back in the same structure.

It gets complex.

Anyway, their relationship is clear, and Kali is certainly the Top. Literally. The roles described of Kali/Sakti as the active giver and Siva as the passive receiver are likewise common. This parallels the F/m side of BDSM well, I would say.

Where I hit the brick wall in this article is a very clear and sharply defined place - "sin". Now, I may have studied Hindu thought, philosophy, and theology a bit, but I don't really recall "sin" coming up in those discussions. You'll also note that the author enjoyed sprinkling romanised Sanskrit throughout his article but never once used the Sanskrit for "sin". I don't know what it is. Do you? I'm not scholar of Sanskrit, but I have a passing familiarity with the slippery, hard-to-translate words associated with many of the religious practices, and I don't ever recall seeing a transliteration for a word meaning "sin".

So the whole "expiation of sin" thing is where I have my doubts in this piece. I kinda dig on the idea of taking on the idealised roles of Kali/Sakti and Siva. That could certainly be workable tantric models, and Kali is already one of the Twelve tantric goddesses from what I recall. Siva is certainly a happy bottom. But sin? Not so much.

I think it would be more accurate to examine the surrender of will to the divine, the surrender of lust to the divine, and surrender of self to the divine. One sees through maya (world illusion) in these ways (among others). Given that some sects practiced mortification of the flesh as a way to distance the mind from the flesh, painplay (properly performed) would be potentially appropriate.

So, barring that one aspect that seems out of place to at least my memories of the topic, the article has some interesting potential.

Homburg,

A couple points about the use of sin in the article.

First, from Yronwode's introduction:

the following essay was written for a church whose interests focussed on integrating BDSM into a neo-Tantric context. its iconography and general protocol included male-submission to a dominant female goddess and priestess. it was my intent, with the contribution of the research contained below, to ground the rituals they described as those of 'expiation, sin, or atonement' in metaphysical and mystical framework which would avoid the problems of the BDSM culture and simultaneously yield potential for sincere neo-Tantrics.

Click to expand...

It seems that the church this essay was primarily written for had already blended neo-tantra with the idea of atonement. That may explain the curious place of sin in the essay; the author was trying to ground western ideas of sin (note that he uses the definition of the Greek hamartia, "missing the mark") in a Hindu context.

I do find it curious that he didn't simply reference ignorance as sin. It's been awhile for me, and I can't recall the Hindu word, but I seem to remember the idea of ignorance, of taking maya for reality, as playing the equivalent part in Hinduism (and Buddhism) that "sin" plays in Christianity. Perhaps the church he was writing for was too deeply invested in the Christian idea of sin to allow for such re-imagining of the concept?

Arkhilokhus said:

Homburg,

A couple points about the use of sin in the article.

First, from Yronwode's introduction:


It seems that the church this essay was primarily written for had already blended neo-tantra with the idea of atonement. That may explain the curious place of sin in the essay; the author was trying to ground western ideas of sin (note that he uses the definition of the Greek hamartia, "missing the mark") in a Hindu context.

Click to expand...

That was my disconnect, I guess. The western conception of "sin" doesn't really belong in this context and doesn't blend well. The expiation portions of the article thus sounded like fantasy wank material to me. This is why it bothered me. Sure, the tantric experience is getting your holy sex on, but when I get that wank-vibe, it doesn't seem quite so holy to me.

I do find it curious that he didn't simply reference ignorance as sin. It's been awhile for me, and I can't recall the Hindu word, but I seem to remember the idea of ignorance, of taking maya for reality, as playing the equivalent part in Hinduism (and Buddhism) that "sin" plays in Christianity. Perhaps the church he was writing for was too deeply invested in the Christian idea of sin to allow for such re-imagining of the concept?

Click to expand...

This is where he should have been. Willful ignorance is relatively close to what he was going for I think. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I don't get the feel that this was written at the request of a particular neo-tantric church. More that he was either writing out one entirely cerebral fantasy, or trying to convince an organisation on spec.

Sin just does not belong in Hindu thinking in the same way that it does in Christian ethos. Weird.


Edited to add: I did some poking around. Sin in Hinduism can be described as adharmic action. Go against the dharma and you screw up your karmic profile. This separates Hinduism out as the sin, in this case, is not against god or the divine, but against self. So expiation of sin is even less important, and less applicable.

The article that I sourced this from struck me as Jainist, as it mentioned sticky karma and accretions, and that is very much Jainist thinking. This would make sense, as the Jains are more likely to be down with the concept of sin, even in this muted adharmic form.

This stuff is actually kind of cool. I think I might switch teams and spend the next couple of years worshipping Kali.

Homburg said:

This is where he should have been. Willful ignorance is relatively close to what he was going for I think.

Click to expand...

You know, now that I think of it, Elise Sutton talks a fair bit about using SM to "break down the male ego". Considering the negative view of the ego in Eastern thought in general, maybe that'd be the right approach?

Arkhilokhus said:

You know, now that I think of it, Elise Sutton talks a fair bit about using SM to "break down the male ego". Considering the negative view of the ego in Eastern thought in general, maybe that'd be the right approach?

Click to expand...

Could be, maybe. I'm not sure that externally applied force can push someone towards moksha, but it might help.

Homburg said:

Could be, maybe. I'm not sure that externally applied force can push someone towards moksha, but it might help.

Click to expand...

I think her position is that subspace represents an essentially ego-less state. Of course, her view is that that is the point where the male submissive can truly understand the fundamental Superiority of Woman, but I could see application in, perhaps, guided meditation or something along those lines.

I have to say, though, that this talk about sin in a FemDom context is giving me some new confessional fantasies.

"Oh, there have been some small changes to the Rite of Reconciliation. First we'll need to strap you into this A-Frame...what's that? Oh, actually all men must now confess to nuns. Don't worry, Sister Mary will be here shortly..."

Arkhilokhus said:

I think her position is that subspace represents an essentially ego-less state. Of course, her view is that that is the point where the male submissive can truly understand the fundamental Superiority of Woman, but I could see application in, perhaps, guided meditation or something along those lines.

Click to expand...

There is a particular Japanese school of buddhism that teaches that zazen is itself enlightenment. That striving for a goal makes that goal impossible to reach and the struggle is itself the goal. In this sense, subspace could well be seen as enlightenment of the temporary sort.

It is certainly a moment without ego, and the thousand chattering monkeys have been silenced. Well, at least from the descriptions.

Arkhilokhus said:

I have to say, though, that this talk about sin in a FemDom context is giving me some new confessional fantasies.

"Oh, there have been some small changes to the Rite of Reconciliation. First we'll need to strap you into this A-Frame...what's that? Oh, actually all men must now confess to nuns. Don't worry, Sister Mary will be here shortly..."

Click to expand...

Heh.

This continues to be an intriguing thread. I will defer to the superior knowledge of other poster’s on tantra and eastern philosophies and try to pick up some stuff from the discussion.

For me, I did not start with a pre-set philosophy about Goddess worship and the divine feminine, its more or less evolved out of a hands-on experience. Along the way I have learn much from Goddess and also read around the subject myself and learnt quite a bit. All of this has helped me develop a greater understanding about what I do. Embracing the concept of Goddess worship has made the sessions I have more intense and meaningful.

Going back to the essay posted originally, the point where I lost the thread of the argument or disagreed with the direction it was heading, was in the linkage of the concept of sin with BDSM. For me, I don’t see any place for original sin in Goddess worship. There is a thread that runs, sin- guilt – repression. It is precisely this idea of original sin that is embedded in many of the world’s major religions that is used to control and repress, largely in the interests of a male priesthood.

To me Goddess worship is something completely different, here the thread is, devotion – creativity – enlightenment. The idea of Goddess is a positive life force, which helps a slave understand the meaning of power and submission. BDSM has a role here because punishment can form part of a programme of training that helps a slave come to that realisation. It is this unique combination of physical suffering combined with the mental openness of the slave that creates the fulfilling experience.

BDSM creates a context in which the Goddess can set he slave ordeals and tests through whihc he has to pass to reach this state of awareness. It's also worth adding that this is not necessarily a straight line, that the slave can sometimes fail and move backwards. I would also add that, of course, you can equally embrace the idea of Goddess worship without BDSM.

Personally, I don't see any of this linking back to an idea of original sin.

I am curious though, does any body know which 'church' this text was written for it's not clear from the essay itself?

As a veritable newbie to Lit, but a fellow traveler looking for the train to Nirvana, this is a fascinating topic. I am really intrigued by the depth of thought and feeling and intellectual curiousity shown here. Have only a few moments to scan through but will be back soon with something pithy to add to discussion! At least I hope so! ;-)

I'm not that interested in Tantra, but I do get a collective punishment boner.

I've been out for a day, and am only just getting caught up. I'm fascinated by the comments and ideas offered here, and so pleased that people are wanting to consider these ideas.

I don't want to get too stuck on the idea of "sin" and expiation; the more I study on this article the more I think maybe the author was struggling with that himself; the organization who had asked him to write this was far more interested in that aspect than he is, as far as I can tell. I've read bits of other things he's written and he hardly seems like the type to focus on such a traditionally western and christian idea. So part of it, I suspect, was him trying to fit his own knowledge of the iconography and meaning of Kali worship into their ideas about, and goals for, the rites they were performing.

SlaveNano, I really appreciate your own contributions here; my fascination with this topic is as much personal as philosophical, and I was really hoping that part of this thread would involve some personal experience and history as well as theory. Please do feel free to share your own viewpoint on these activities.

I have looked around a bit and can find no other info on what group originally requested the essay.

I think one way to approach these rituals is to ask how much the rite has to do with "punishment", which of course is pretty familiar as a concept for most dom/mes around here, as opposed to the goal of providing a transformative experience for the submissive, and possibly an equally transcendent state for the dom/me.

Which leads me to this basic idea - I do see this stuff as beyond gender, and beyond any construct of sin and correction. I think the most important facets of the article for me to consider were the transcendent experience of those divine roles and the fascinating aspect of performance of a BDSM "mystery play" performed in front of an audience.

I'm hoping for both philosophical and personal discussion here; anyone who has experienced this sort of deliberate and transcendent form of BDSM rite is more than welcome to share...

Wow, thanks everyone so far - there's a lot here to chew on.

*goes off to re-read all the posts again*

I am not enlightened enough to view what I do as anything more than sex, with some theatre.