Some recommendations for evaluating your practice.

If you chance upon some form of practice - spiritual, personal development, otherwise - why would you want to evaluate if it actually works, when you can just go with it and see what happens? Here are some reasons: Because you've fallen for charlatans before. Because you have to invest your time and money, and both are precious to you. Because you know humans are biased. Simply because you're curious, and you want to know how the world actually works.

So... do you want to know if it really works, or do you just want to feel good? Both are fine, but if you do the latter, please don't pretend like you know. Be honest with yourself and others.

Journal your experiences.

Do you journal only the affirming experiences, or do you try to write down the negative too? Again, both can be good practice, but you need to be clear, be honest. Don't lie to yourself.

When you look for external proof, actively try to find sources that contradict, criticize, debunk your practice. Repeat that process after a while. New research may have surfaced, and your experience might have sharpened your eye.

Ask yourself: What do I do to account for the placebo effect? What do I do to counter my biases - most importantly, how do I deal with selection and confirmation bias?

Don't keep to your social media bubble. Try to actively seek out places where you are likely to encounter opposition, criticism, skepticism.

Do you try to be in-line with up-to-date, peer-reviewed science? If not, do you openly admit this being the case? Don't quote scientific literature if it agrees with you, but then when challenged, retreat to "it's not science, it's a lifestyle", "I really don't care about science" or somesuch.

Do check from time to time whether the ideas behind your practice are consistent with the rest of your worldview and generally accepted facts.

Perhaps the most important recommendation: Start prefacing your claims with "I think", "It might be the case", "I suspect", "I'm very confident" etc. Whenever you can, add the reason for why you think this way. It might seem silly, but it will change the way you relate to your own ideas - you train yourself to apportion your beliefs to the evidence and have good reasons for believing in them. I.e., it will make you more rational.

"Cyclical Impact of Porn"

In the above video, youtube user anewchristian72 essentially tells us that porn affects young men's sexuality by filling them up (npi) with unrealistic expectations about female sexuality. I won't go into the fact that he equates porn with heterosexual porn, and bad het porn at that (and how about written erotica? How about comics?). Let's let him pass on that.

While it's not surprising that a christian rants against porn, I would like to point out a few aspects that I found particularly interesting with this little video:

One is that he only talks about the unrealistic portrayal of women in porn. I won't deny that this is true for the  vast majority of heterosexual pornography (one absolutely amazing exception being comstock films - if you have additional examples of porn that is actually good, please let me know). I would like to add, though, that the portrayal of men in het porn is at least as unrealistic. If we are to assume that this wrongful imagery influences young men in bad ways by way of false expectations, then shouldn't we assume that the portrayal of their own gender, with extremely huge cocks that are always ready, always erect, and their owners always horny and willing no matter what, is even more devastating to those young souls?

I was about to write, in accordance with anewchristian72's opinion and feminist mainstream, that the portrayal of women in het porn is a lot more denigrating than that of the male protagonists - but is this indeed true? Men are reduced to sex machines who have nothing on their minds except fucking women - how is this not supposed to be denigrating to my gender? Maybe there is some difference in quantity here, but certainly not in principle.

A second observation: He does not present any facts, he doesn't quote any studies, he doesn't even reference personal experience. I'm always amazed when that happens. How does he know what he claims to know? How can we test his claims to be true? As mentioned before, I like it when people qualify their claims with regard to their supposed ontological status.

Thirdly, I find it interesting how people just assume that young minds are impressionable, and therefore, whatever they see in whatever erotic product of their choice will be directly reflected in their sexual behaviour. I wonder if that is indeed the case. People don't go all panicky just because of some sci-fi flick. People don't run into the streets with guns after watching Die Hard. On the other hand, people are affected by advertisement, of course. I would like to know things like that in a little more detail, before starting off with sweeping judgments about the whole erotica industry based on a lot of ideology and little factual knowledge.

So, yeah, that's it. No punchline here, as I have to go home now and spend some quality time in bed with my girlfriend, the porn star.

A Very, Very Brief Story Of Enlightenment

This is how I envision that it probably might have come to pass (*):

One rainy afternoon back in 525 (or so) b.c.e., a well-respected member of a well-respected family in ancient India sat down and admitted to himself that he was deeply dissatisfied with his life. He left the safe surroundings of his home, and he ventured to study with the foremost spiritual leaders of his time and place, to find lasting peace of mind.

Now, this man, who would later be called the buddha, was surely a clever fellow. Not only was he able to participate in, and master the techniques he learned, at an amazing speed - he also came to realize that they did not work. Not as advertised, anyway. They gave him peace, yes, and bliss, and deep mental states full of visions and tranquility - but all of this did not last. The blissful states lasted for minutes, probably hours at most, and then he was back to his old little self-loathing limited normal self.

So he sat down and had a long, intensive discussion with himself. It seemed that all those methods had one thing in common: They were incredibly complicated. And also, they were highly elitist, suitable only for the initiated, for the rich, for the True Believers; covered with layers upon layers of superstition and guru worship and... all the things that our clever young hero despised.

In short, they did not alleviate suffering. Like sex with someone you don't care about, they gave you a short kick, and left you with an emptiness even deeper than before.

But he also had an inkling that, hidden within all that superficial spiritual materialism, an incredibly valuable gem was to be found.

So, maybe, all he had to do was strip away the unnecessary. Much like a later genius would say - you only have to carve away the stone that hides the statue.

So he took all that those methods he learned had in common. The result was shockingly, and quite deceptively, simple: Sit down, breathe, focus on breathing. When thoughts arise, let them pass, and gently move your focus back to breathing.

And that was what he did. He sat down under the bo tree, snakes came and went, the veil of Maya was torn before his eyes, and he could see. Really see. And feel, and smell, and taste... his mind explored past lives and future possibilities, and he stopped being limited by his own ego.

In short, he had discovered the secret.

Soon after, an old man came along, and asked him what he was doing. And the buddha told him. The man started to meditate, and found some peace of mind. Not quite the kind of peace the buddha had, mind you - but then, the old man had never meditated in his whole life, so the practice would probably take some time with him.

At any rate, the man felt so much better that he started spreading the word. And others started to follow the newly enlightened being. As he started teaching, he also discovered that he had a way with words. With ever more people attending his lectures, ever more disciples listening intently, he was on a roll. As his disciples got into the habit of practice, they, too, experienced great states of peace and tranquility. Plus, they provided the buddha with food and drink and, even more importantly, veneration.

It seemed as if there was no stopping the newborn movement. Years passed, during which the disciples discussed the intricacies of their spiritual advancements, and - deeply rooted in the fecund soil of the buddha's teachings - the sprout of a new doctrine began to bloom. A king had announced his arrival. A king! Everyone was overwhelmed. The buddha, who was now used to having a certain effect on people, managed to keep his cool. After all, this was what was expected of him.

And yet, at around that time, a few nagging doubts clouded his enlightened mind. It had been two years since his adventure under the bo tree, and none of his pupils seemed to have been enlightened. Moreover, they began to quarrel and quibble and fight about minor points - how to sit, when to sit, what to eat - that really had nothing to do with his message.

Maybe he had been unscrupulous in his choice of words. Initially, he hadn't given it much thought. In his delighted state, it had seem like such a minor problem! What he had experienced had felt, to him, like what the scriptures described as moksha, bodhi, kensho, metanoia. So that was what he talked about. And now it was too late to stop. Within the new sprout of buddhism, already religiosity was claiming its place, suffocating the roots, poisoning the mind.

At a sunny afternoon, back in 505 (or so) b.c.e., two Venerable Disciples were sitting in the long grass. They were venerable indeed, Followers of the First Month, trustworthy and truly devoted to the cause. One of them was the Venerable Disanjali, with long hairs and a wild beard; the other, younger one, was the Venerable Assamphuti, blond and fair.

As they sat, Disanjali said: "Venerable Assamphuti, I am annoyed by the newest converts. They talk about enlightenment as if they were entitled to it. As if the practice was somehow an automatic machine, a vendor, selling enlightenment for a little practice. As if it was something that they could have, without putting in the hard work, as we do."

To this, Assamphuti sighed, and replied: "Venerable Disanjali, they are greedy and cheap. They also say that some of them should be enlightened by now. Some of them even say that The Master might be wrong."

Disanjali shook his long-haired head: "It saddens me deeply. We might have to expel some of them."

"Yes, we might. But then again... haven't you secretly been having similar thoughts, from time to time?" He looked up, and hastened to add: "Not that those thoughts should be taken seriously, of course."

"Of course not."

They were silent for a bit. Then Disanjali said: "Maybe we should ask The Master about it."

"Are you crazy?" Assamphuti exclaimed, and then instantly returned to his well-disciplined, calm voice, such as was suitable for a Venerable Disciple of the First Month. "You are essentially saying that The Master is wrong. That He might not be enlightened. That He might..."

"Lie to us?" That was the dark, solemn voice of the Very Venerable Disciple Attamuno, who had been secretly listening in. Blushing deeply, the two of them looked at him in astonishment. He sat down in the grass, dropping his long walking-stick to the ground, and said with a soft smile: "Oh you youngsters. You have it wrong, you know. I've been giving the thing a lot of thought, pondering night after night, sitting awake in the pale moonlight. The answer is there, right in front of your eyes, and yet you don't see it."

He made a long, artistic pause just to add to the thrill.

Then he continued: "We know that The Master cannot be wrong. He has proven it over and over. And yet, we also know that enlightenment doesn't come to us, regardless of how much we try. So, my friends, there is only one possible solution... "

Again, a long pause. This time, Assamphuti couldn't bear it, and urged him to speak on.

"Isn't it obvious? We are misunderstanding The Master. He's talking figuratively, He's talking in images and similes. He's expressing something that we, the unenlightened, are not able to understand."

He paused again. Only this time, it was not for effect. He fell into a grave, thoughtful silence.

"And what, my friend, might that be?" asked Disanjali then.

"Well, my Venerable Brother Disanjali. I don't understand it either. After all, I'm not enlightened. But I think that, in a way I'm not completely sure how to explain, and that I think is really an unsolvable riddle, enlightenment ultimately is not."

"What?" Both of his fellows exclaimed in unison, thinking the older monk had gone insane.

"It is, and yet it isn't. It's not here, not there. It's not a state. It is nothing that can be expressed in words. You cannot explain it to the unenlightened. Thus, when The Master speaks about enlightenment, he's talking from a perspective of enlightenment - a perspective we cannot hope to understand, unless we are, ourselves, enlightened. Which we are not. Which we cannot really 'be', because, as I said, it is not  a state."

The two of them sat in stunned silence, while Attamuno was slowly caressing a flower.

"You're right", said Disanjali after a while.

"Yes", said Assamphuti. "He's right."

And so it was. The new doctrine spread like a wildfire through the sangha, keeping a lot of followers in the group that might otherwise have turned away, binding the tightly-knit community even closer together, so that, even after the buddha died, they were able to move on. They prospered.

True, the wildfire also burned down a few remnants of self-esteem. But such was to be expected. It was only collateral damage. What mattered was the sangha, the dharma, the buddha, not some selfish concerns a few youngsters might have.

After all, the doctrine flourished, and it helped keep the peace in the land. Over time, it got a lot more intricate, convoluted, confusing. Ironically, that served even better to keep people in their place. Whenever somebody asked or had doubts, it was only because they were not there yet, hadn't read enough of the scriptures, had a few thousand more lives of suffering before they could reach... well, not reach, really... a state of non-state, the realization of form and emptiness... ach duh, you can't understand it anyway! Stop asking those stupid questions! You're such a child!

Patient teachers explaining the same points of Truth with high confidence, over and over again. Now and then, some teachers were not quite so patient. Some even slept with their students. That, however, was a totally different story, utterly different and unrelated indeed.

Coalitions arose: first with kings, then with tyrants. On the very top of that great mountain of confusion, a wonderful temple was built. Inside of it, priests developed increasingly complicated rituals, while peasants were plowing their fields, happily giving whatever they could to the priests for a chance of enlightenment only a few thousand reincarnations later. Children were starving, monks were meditating, priests were discussing important matters, such as whether women were able to reach enlightenment, or what was the karmic punishment for stealing from the temple. Lots of good was done in the name of the dharma. Lots of bad was done, too.

By and large, the world was at peace.

----------
(*) very obvious historical inaccuracies and propositions inconsistent with intricacies of 2500 years' worth of interpretation and exegesis notwithstanding

Enemies Of The Faith? Enemies Of Believers?

Dear Mr Rowan Williams,

It's easter time. Time of eggs, bunnies, and funny utterances by members of several ritualistic organisations.

For one example, there is this gem: "Guardian" Interview with "bishop" Rowan Williams, in which you are quoted as having a few very interesting stances about "new atheism" and its relationship towards your organisation.

Let me first say that I find it rather funny when a "bishop" of the roman catholic organisation demands a reasonable debate.  I don't want to bash you personally; after all, there is no compulsory sex demanded by law, and having no sense of style in clothing is your personal prerogative, but I cannot help a little chuckle at such an occasion.

I sure hope that you can share in my laugh, though, when I read a few sentences later that "resurrection is a fact".

I will not start to repeat arguments that have fallen on deaf ears for centuries now. I suggest a little experiment you can conduct for yourself in the peace of your living room: Say "reasonable", aloud, ten times. Now do the same for "resurrection".  Now combine the two - "reasonable, resurrection, reasonable, resurrection..." And now try not to laugh.

As I said above, apart from a little friendly teasing, I won't bash you personally.

You see, I think that we should heed the fundamental difference between a person and their beliefs.

In said article, you state that "faith [is] no longer seen as 'a brainless and oppressive enemy' but recognised as a potential ally against a greedy and individualistic way of life that feels 'increasingly insane'".

There are several major issues with that one sentence.

1. Enemies Of The Faith

Abstract: Mr Williams, I am not your enemy, even though I find the teachings your organisation represents to be nonsensical, unfounded and debilitating to the human mind.

First off, faith cannot be an ally or an enemy. We might count this off as just a figure of speech, a lapsus linguae. But the catholic teaching specifically states that Jesus of Nazareth was (and still IS!) "the way, the truth, and the life", and not in a merely figurative way. Indeed, the church's teachings, along with every other religious teaching, are full to the brim with metaphysical entities such as faith, sin, the messiah, the trinity - all said to be "real" in some way. Not simply a metaphor, an image representing something else - no, they're supposed to be real, actual entities. The essential wafer after transubstantiation, to name one of the more absurd ones.

So, seeing as you are an official of said organisation, we have to assume that you're not talking about teachings and logical structures, but about some etherial, hidden, mystical "entity". You are essentially saying that atheists are seeing faith as a metaphysical entity that they can ally with.

Now, of course, atheists can and will sometimes be exactly as unreasonable as theists. Merely recognizing the nonexistence of a deity does not a mature human being make.

Anthropomorphisation is one of the nastiest, most resilient scourges of humanity (as well as one of the most beautiful poetic expressions, of course). It is deeply rooted in our biological system (what you like to call "soul"), serves a few very fundamental purposes, and is an unfathomably dangerous weapon in the hands of demagogues and church leaders.

The good news is that we can educate ourselves not to fall into that trap. Thus (whenever I'm not simply talking tongue-in-cheek and having some teasing in good humour), I habitually make a point of distinguishing between a person and their ideas. You, Mr Williams, are, for all I know, a decent, loving, caring, intelligent, well-educated human being. I might be wrong, since I don't know you, but I'm happy to assume the best about people I don't know, until otherwise proven.

But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with anything you say.

In fact, the teachings of your organisation thrive on such human flaws. They are specifically designed to do just that. They are a highly sophisticated, intricate system of flawed logic - circular, adhominem, no-true-scotsmanesque syllogisms interwoven with invitations for identification, us-vs-them thinking, reification, hyperbole, guilt-tripping, double binds and simple denial - built upon each other and resting on unfounded assertions.

And that, Mr Williams, I see as a huge problem.

Try thinking that the church is the "body of christ", that christ died for your sins, that you are a labourer in the vineyard, and that someone is attacking this very body-church-vineyard-thingie by saying that christ's teachings are utter nonsense. And then try to stay calm. You'll have to be an iceberg to be able to accomplish that with any consistence.

2. An Ally Against A Certain Way Of Life

Abstract: Religious teachings are generally a hindrance, not a tool, for human development.

I agree that greed is bad. I fail to see any reasonable connection between the belief in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth on the one hand, and overcoming greed on the other hand. On top of that, I fail to see how being an individual, and being conscious of being an individual, have anything to do with being greedy. (The "individualism is bad" stance that the catholic organisation has adopted is deeply troubling in and of itself, but more of that later.)

In reality, compassion and rationality are the mental capabilities that can help me overcome my greed. Both can be trained using various methods, and those methods are available to atheists as much as theists. Some of those methods are described in this very blog. But ultimately, everybody has to find their own ways to deal with their shortcomings, and - apart from my own experience and a few informed speculations - I cannot offer any bulletproof system for overcoming vice; and neither can you. If you claim that you can, then please show the evidence.

Well and also, compassion and reality can be scientifically shown to be grounded in human biology - I fancy this as a slight, but definite advantage over a metaphysical overlord who sacrificed himself to himself in order to set humanity free from the punishment he himself imposed upon them in the first place.

If anything, the us-vs-them mentality endorsed by the christian gospels - as well as the catholic teachings purportedly grounded upon those gospels - serve to maintain one's greed while hiding it behind a mask of piety. Do I really need to mention the gold-and-silk escapades of your organisation as one very obvious example?

I will not venture to claim that christians are, on average, more greedy than atheists. But I challenge you to show, based on peer-reviewed academical studies, that people of faith are less greedy than us grim dark heathens.

In conclusion, every christian, hindu, muslim, buddhist, even scientologist can be my friend, and can be an ally in dealing with all the challenges we are currently facing - but that doesn't change the fact that I find the teachings of all those religions ridiculous, destructive and - well, simply plain old wrong.

I am looking forward to your reply,

With kind regards,
Betlamed the Skeptic Tantrika

A poor experience

This is a post from a (professional, it seems) tantrika, about a session gone sour... I believe it is good to keep an eye out - just because it's "tantra", that does not imply that it is all good and fine, roses and wine, all the time...

http://tantrictouch.blogspot.com/2011/11/several-of-my-clients-have-asked-me-my.html

Two specific points of interest:

"When I practice massage, I am the giver and my own sexual feelings have no role in the room. " 

Hmmm... I'm not sure about that. If "have no role" means that they shouldn't drive the action, I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that they're there... well, if tantra is about accepting things as they truly are, then the presence of sexual feelings shouldn't be denied.

Of course, that kind of acceptance can only arise (pun intended) in an emotional and physical safe-place. Both parties have to feel completely at ease for this to be possible. Given that the receiver was a woman, and the practitioner was a total stranger, well - I can certainly understand her unease about the situation. Sad as it is, women have to take additional precautions in that case. I'm afraid that receiving a tantric massage from a stranger is simply a no-go for a woman. Of course, everyone has to decide that for themselves, but as much as I enjoy the fantasy of practicing my skills on a strange woman I picked up from the street, I very much doubt that it's ever going to happen. Of course, I wouldn't dream of doing anything bad - but how would the woman in question know it?

This also raises the question of whether the roles can be switched. My impression is that for most tantrikas, you're either the giver or the receiver in one given session. Well, I haven't experienced it enough, but as it is, this seems like an incredibly inflexible model to me. Assuming the right circumstances of course, then if the "receiver" starts "giving", it ends up being not-quite-tantra? No, doesn't feel right. Or rather, well then so be it, who cares about the labels anyway.

"Assuming that I had suffered some negative sexual experiences, he said past sexual abuse was blocking me from moving forward in the massage."

That one kinda reminds me of my first encounter with tantra enthusiasts. At some point, one of the guys told me that I "have lots of blockages that need to be loosened." I think it was because I had doubted that tantra was anything but a thinly veiled attempt at group sex, or something.

This kind of ideological hogwash drives me up the wall. That one comment kept me from looking into tantra for years.

As a practitioner of anything - ANYTHING, from psychoanalysis to christianity to NLP or tantra - you never, never, EVER blame the recipient/client/convertee. If they're not open to whatever you're doing, then that is their frakkin' right. It's not your job to theorize about their inner processes. Doing so is rude, it's a form of violence, and on top of that it's mostly ineffective - it won't get you one step closer to your goal. Except, perhaps, if the person in question is highly insecure about themselves. (Which might just be the assumption behind the attempt, and if that is the case, it doesn't make it any better. At all.)

Quite apart from all that - even assuming that she suffered abuse and is blocked by it - then it is still not that guy's frakkin' job to decide when it's time for her to work on that blockage. Or whether she's ever up to it.

Did that guy have a degree in clinical psychology? Duh.

By the way, that kind of blaming is a technique frequently employed by cults. When that guy said that, it made tantra look like a cult to me. All the talk about lingams and yonis, the soft voices, and the excited spark in their eyes didn't help a lot, either.

See? It drives me up the wall, and into writing walls of text.

Shiatsu

Last week at the spa, I had a very interesting and instructive experience with shiatsu.

Passive stretching and that specific style of massage feels extremely good. Not a big surprise there, but an excellent reason to grant myself some more regular shiatsu sessions. The movements have a relaxing and activating effect at the same time. And besides, the flexibility and agility of those masseurs is pretty impressive.

Now about the "energetic" part. Shiatsu is not meant to be a simple stretching exercise. It's meant to work on your "meridians". Now, this specific practitioner did something very interesting: She predicted that, since she had worked on my "bladder meridian", I would probably have to use the restroom more often the following day.

Did I? I have no clue. For one, I was sweating all day in the sauna, and therefore drinking a lot; secondly, I really couldn't tell whether I peed more than usual; and thirdly, she gave me the suggestion beforehand, so in case there was an effect, we can't tell whether it came from the massage or from the suggestion.

But in hindsight, another thing stands out. Imagine a western doctor treating you for... whatever, a nosebleed. And at the end of the treatment, said doctor says, "Oh by the way... I gave you something for your bladder, you'll have to use the restroom a lot these days."

Wouldn't you be a bit upset? I, for one, can imagine suing that doctor all over the place. I rather like to know beforehand what I will be up to, or if there are any side-effects to a treatment. That is because I like to take my decisions myself. Strictly speaking, this is an invasion of my privacy and physical integrity.

Of course, I wouldn't do that with a shiatsu practitioner, and I don't think anyone would.

The reason for this is shockingly simple: When a western doctor gives you a prediction, you can bet almost all your money on that prediction coming true. When a practitioner of some eastern massage technique does the same, you can bet that the prediction will come true in exactly 50% of all cases.

Now, I don't even want to claim that there is literally NOTHING to meridians. I'm perfectly convinced that those old chinese (or, in the case of shiatsu, those not-so-old japanese of the late 19th century) knew a bit about the human body.

But I am equally sure that their metaphysical, "energetic" explanation kept them from developing their knowledge to its full potential.

I would bet that because the "energetic" explanation is unfalsifiable, and therefore utterly useless. You cannot disprove any specific part of a theory like that, therefore the theory cannot be expanded upon or improved.

In other words, the "bladder meridian" will most probably have an effect on the bladder in some cases - namely, those cases where they hit on an actual nerve center by chance. In all other cases, nothing will happen. Or perhaps, something entirely different from what the practitioner expects. Happily, since our body is constructed to withstand outer influences to a large degree, most effects will either be beneficial or insignificant. That is, in my view, eastern practitioners' real competitive edge.

And of course, because eastern medicine never ever claims any actual effects - it's only ever for prevention, never for healing - you cannot decide whether there is something to it or not. If the desired effect does not appear, then there's always some explanation for that. And even that practitioner at the spa only said that it would "probably" happen.

I will definitely go on with shiatsu. I will ask the next practitioner to refrain from giving me their predictions beforehand. One week later, I will ask them, and then compare notes.

"The way is the goal"

Of course, it is not about not ejaculating. (If that were the case, tantra wouldn't make any sense for women, for one.) Nor am I convinced that a mystical energy resides in the semen that gets lost.

To me, it is mostly about letting go of any "you HAVE to"s. When you cultivate this inner pleasure that is not dependent on an outer result, after some time the outer result actually does become rather unnecessary, and you gain more independence of outside influences.

So it would be illogical to say, "you HAVE to hold back the ejaculation". Maybe at the beginning, you'll have to do that, because the urge is so strong, and you're so used to associating sexual pleasure with it. But at some point you realize that that's just the prep school. That prescription, that restriction was good for a while, and then it just fell away. You found a pleasure that is so much deeper than the ejaculation, so you will automatically go for that. And if that is not the case (because no prescription fits every human being), then perhaps the wise thing is to just let go of tantra, and do something else!

It is more a practice than an idea or a prescription. Like practicing, I dunno, let's say karate, or rock-climbing. Sure you accept some restrictions, maybe stick to a diet or a harsh training routine - but the restrictions are not the point. You just commit yourself to whatever it is you are doing, and after a time, you discover that there's even more to it than you thought - or perhaps something completely DIFFERENT from what you expected. And then you might stick to it for life. Or, quite possibly, you lose interest, other things become more important, and you just stop practicing... maybe to pick it up again a few years later.

Here's what I've learned from practicing zen: The urge to turn it into a "MUST --- or otherwise...", into an eternally true prescription, into an "only way", a religion, is extremely strong. I certainly fell for it, and I took the decision to stop the meditations at least for a while. And I still stand to that decision, I think it was the right one. Because once you start doing that, you have an internal struggle going on, like a competition - who will win the race, me or me? And that is precisely what it is NOT about. Quite the opposite, really.

But then, sometimes, you "get it", you realize that it's about the doing, not about the result. Those are the times that are really, really good. Those are the times that keep you wondering what else you might discover on this path you've chosen. And those are the times that deepen your commitment.

I Do Not Believe In Energy

Okay, let's be more specific here.

Of course there is energy. It is equivalent to mass times speed of light squared. It is present as electromagnetism, the weak and the strong force, as sunlight and movement, and of course, it runs through all of our bodies in the form of chemo-electrical nerve impulses and chemically bound ions, as long as we're alive.

What I do not believe in is chi (or qi), a mystical fluidum that cannot be measured or otherwise objectively perceived, but is still supposed to somehow "be there", ready to be influenced and manipulated by puny humans.

I think that there is good reason to only believe what is actually proven to be there. And there is also excellent reason to mistrust anyone who claims to be able to manipulate unproven mystical powers, even moreso if they make a big fat show of it and have a huge flock of followers.

Ever wondered about those qi gong "masters" who are seemingly able to throw people around the room against their will and beyond any physical explanation - just by focusing their qi? Well, duh... perhaps it's time to look into why those "masters" only ever seem to be able to demonstrate their magic powers on their own followers - and how, as soon as they are to work their qi on a non-believer, they always come up with the wildest of excuses. Like, "today is a bad day for qi gong" (lame), "It would be unethical to show this to the uninitiated" (really? why?), or my all-time favourite "I would hurt him so bad it's not worth it" (at least that one's funny, albeit unintentionally so).

So... no qi going 'round. And still, I'm an avid qi gong practitioner, and as the title of this blog suggests, I'm also into tantra... an awful lot, actually.

So how can I rationalize this obvious contradiction away?

Umm... *rolls up biblical sleeves* well, it's all symbolic, ya knows?

Naaah. Not symbolic AT ALL. Quite the contrary, actually.

I like to distinguish three seperate elements: a) my actual physical/mental experience at that moment; b) my conscious visualisations; c) my theory and interpretation of the experience

In other words:

I feel whatever I'm feeling while I'm consciously breathing and working my PC muscle; this feeling is there whether I can explain it or not. If I start conceptualizing this feeling, I can compare it to other things - it feels LIKE an energy flow through my body. (That obviously doesn't mean that it IS an energy flow; big fat conceptual mistake there! Our inner perceptions are obviously flawed, as our nervous system isn't very much equipped for that - ever had a wound in your mouth, and touched it with your tongue? It feels much bigger than it really is, doesn't it?)

By visualising this energy flow, the feeling gets even more intense. The line between the feeling and the visualization gets blurred and sometimes completely vanishes, and thus in my mind at that moment, the feeling IS an energy flow. My mind has no other frame of reference, and thus, this is what it will come up with.

Now, when theorizing about it later on, one will most probably turn to the philosophical framework one is used to: If you're a christian, you might interpret this as the Holy Spirit moving through you (though I highly doubt that there are many christians out there practicing tantra, but what do I know). If you're a taoist, you might call it the qi flowing through your meridians. The yogi might find her kundalini awakening. And if you're a materialist like myself, you will perhaps look for clenched and stretched muscles, nerves transmitting signals of relaxation, and the reward center in the brain getting activated.

In all those cases, the experience itself can only be beneficial. Your ideology or your interpretation really doesn't change the experience, at least as long as it doesn't keep you from having it. (I have already been tempted to teach a few past-middle-aged christian ladies how to breathe into their pelvic floors... believe me, resisting this temptation wasn't easy... NOT AT ALL EASY!!!)

So the interpretation doesn't really matter, there might as well be none at all... does it?

Well, yes and no. Sure, we can all just join hands and enjoy.

But for one, as the buddha taught, coming up with explanations is so deeply human as to be almost unavoidable.

And secondly - and, I think, much more importantly - if we can come up with a good and solid scientific explanation, tested with the utmost scientific vigour, then we can use this knowledge for even more pleasure, even more healing, even better orgasms. Of course the trap is to make a sport and a tournament out of it and thus spoil the fun - but this trap is there anyway, even the most "spiritual" people somehow manage to engage in contests of who is "even more spiritual" than the next person.

So, to sum it up: Enjoy the experience, and enjoy making up an explanation for the experience later on! And if you cannot find any explanation, don't worry - it'll be fun anyway.

So... What Exactly IS Tantra, Anyway?

Let's start our journey by looking at terms. Otherwise, we won't know what we're talking about, and chances are we'll talk past each other.


Tantra is an old religious teaching deeply rooted in ancient hinduism. It poses that the world of phenomena is a world of dualistic oppositions - black/white, male/female, active/passive, etc.; and that beyond those phenomena, there is absolute, unspeakable unity; every word we use to describe this unity is inherently wrong, because words, too, are phenomena and thus subject to dualism.


Tantra, now, aims to achieve a state of enlightenment - i.e., as it were, unity with this universal unity - by various means: meditation, breathing techniques, visualisations, mantras. One of those means lies in the acceptance and transcendenc of one's sexuality.


As far as I know, the "authentic" traditions of tantra put a lot of focus on asceticism. Which is probably not what one thinks of when one hears the word "tantra", but it does fit in well with the strong ascetic tradition inside hinduism.


It also used to be a highly secretive, esoteric system of stepwise initiations by a guru.


Somewhere along, or rather alongside, the "spiritual" re-awakening of the 1970s and -80s, the tantric teachings were imported into the western countries. Of course, the west in our times being what it is - far from "wild", but eager for money, and at the same time eager to fill the perceived spiritual vacuum that the eagerness for money brought with it, the teachings were sucked up, well... eagerly..., and at the same time were completely transformed.


Basically, what we did was that we stripped tantra of almost everything related to hinduism (except for a few words, which I will probably talk about in a later posting), specifically of the guru doctrine and the relations to the hindu pantheon, and on the other hand, we added a therapeutic slant to it.


While for the more spiritually-minded, a few "energetic" teachings were added.


The basic idea in all this was that a gentle touch can not only bring good feelings and strong orgasms, but also emotional healing, a better connection of body and mind, and whatever one sees as spiritual awakening.


Thus, neo-tantra was born: Adaptable to the needs of prostitutes and their customers (we shall have to talk about whether professional tantra is prostitution later on); but also appealing to the spiritually inclined esotericist, as well as the couple in their best years who would just like to rekindle the flames of their slowly burning-out sexuality. You can explore your intimacy in groups without ever running any risk of getting an ugly STD or (heavens forbid!) having to ouch another person's genitalia - or you can get a "tantric massage" with a slight smell of incense, a few candles and a very Happy Ending for your lingam, from your run-off-the-mill prostitute arond the corner.


Maybe this does sound a bit - shall we say "skeptical"? Well, it's probably not - at least not in the way you might expect.


You see, I happen to be convinced that pleasure in all forms is a good thing, as long as nobody gets hurt. And orgasms are probably one of the most intense forms of pleasure that we puny humans know. I also happen to think that roughly 95% of the male population haven't even begun to explore their full orgasmic potential (with women, it's probably different, I don't know - though my impression is that there's not a lot of difference there).


My experience has been that those intense tantric pleasures make me more peaceful, confident, balanced and energetic. So far, I haven't seen any bad side effects - that is, if we disregard the occasional sore PC muscles, the back pain from far too much lying on my back, and the blistered fingers (okay, just joking here...). All of which are, of course, very real dangers of the tantric practice, which I feel obliged to share with you, in case you meditate on walking down that path.


But apart from that, I simply cannot find anything even remotely bad in the idea of a practice that gives you almost instant ecstatic pleasures, while making you more aware of your physical sensations, getting you to lie calm for an hour or two - and all of that while you're own your own (completely free of charge) or with (a) partner(s) (free of charge if you find a willing partner). It gives me a tremendous sense of power to know that a little conscious breathing can make me feel better than I probably ever felt in my whole life. And the best thing is that nobody can take that away from me, except some serious brain damage or, obviously, death itself.


So, what AM I skeptical about?


Well, let's just say I find the religious overtones rather... misleading. I don't need to call my cock lingam just to feel more enlightened. In fact, I'm pretty sure that enlightenment in the strict sense of the word just doesn't exist. I find the idea of guruism and stepwise initiation based on the whims of another man's fancy disgusting - in fact, I think it's just a thinly veiled power game. (Please don't tell me I would have to know the hindu religion better to judge that - religious hierarchy is religious hierarchy and an abomination as such, whether it be the catholic clergy, tibetan lamaism or hindu gurudom.)


On a more general level, I'm really pissed off by the idea that only "authentic" tantra is valid, or that neo-tantra is somehow a watered-down, wishy-washy thing that does more harm than good. If you happen to be of this opinion: How on earth is it your business to decide what I like to do in order to feel good? How come you know better than myself what's best for me? If you want to make a point about spirituality, or why it's a bad idea to pay for sex, okay, make your point and let's talk about it. But please don't play the "authentic" card without ever having defined what you mean by "authentic", or why you think it's important. And also, please avoid words such as "superficial", "materialistic", or "western" as general terms of disagreement. These are overgeneralized, vague terms that don't actually convey any meaning, and thus my only reaction will be to kindly ask you to define what you mean.