| |
|
Asa
That's a wonderful post - thanks a lot. I can certainly empathise with your experiences & those of yr friend. In general, I'd that what is important is that we have such experiences, and how we interpret them in terms of this or that 'map' is almost secondary.
What I find impressive in your account is that your own bout of hyperawareness was related to that of your friend - I have also had similar experiences over the years with people - not necessarily 'magical partners' but friendships where there is a mutual 'growing-together' - going on - a sharing if you will - be it intellectual ideas, emotional open-ness, intuitions or even pure lust. What can be quite startling is how this 'growing-together' can manifest as shared 'astral' communications, mutual dreams, the experience of being in each other's bodies, surges of emotion, etc.
This brings up two related issues for me. Firstly, that one of central themes in Tantra which gets missed in Western appropriations (which tend to emphasise technique or purely 'internal' experience) is that so much of Tantric practice is concerned with relationship to other beings - not only devas, yoginis & other-worldly powers but other human beings. There is a great stress placed on 'appropriate' moral conduct (such as Ahimsa - non-violence in thought, word or deed). Eloqunce of speech is one of the Siddhis and the benefits of engaging with others is continually stressed He who makes eight Brahmanas understand this becomes like the sun’s rays. (Ganesha Upanishad).
Secondly, and although this might seem to be a digression, there is to my mind a radical difference between how the Self is perceived in Western and South Asian psychology. I'll try and keep this brief. Western perceptions of the Self value individuality. "Knowing" ones' self - be it couched in spiritual, religioous or even psychoanalytic terms is very much viewed as an interiorised, 'private' process. We find our 'self' as distinct from other individuals. This effects us in quite profound ways, from how we view ourselves as self-determining agents to notions of privacy, sexual identity, etc. Shivananda Khan, an Indian AIDS researcher (arguing that 'Western' constructions of sexual identity cannot be applied to South Asian cultures) says that:
...in our cultures, concepts of individuality, of the separated individual are weak. Family, community, the group, clan, these are the centres of our identities. To be separated, an individual, is often seen socially and religiously as an aberration. We can put the debate succinctly as a conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.
and
In our cultures and religions, the individual and the community and not seen as separated, as distinct entities. The individual is subsumed within family and community. Personal choices are secondary to family, community and religious choices. In fact choices may not be the right word. Duty, honour, obligation, social contracts may be more appropriate.
I find this argument fits in with my reading/experience of Tantra - where there is a strong emphasis on being a member of a clan (kula), a line of transmission (samprayada) or simply a relationship with a guru. Similarly, texts have a secondary importance - the primary mode of transmission of knowlege is oral (i.e. an enagagement). Indeed, learning from books alone (a 'private' experience?) alone is often denigrated as useless.
Does that make sense? |
|
|
