Society for Sacred Sexuality

Gary Joseph · Posted: December 7, 2004

[This Topic explains the error of false sexual moralism and presents a new, true moral paradigm. While it stands alone, flawed moralism is better understood in the context of the Myth of Evil. That Topic is therefore recommended background reading.]

Values serve society by promoting ideals that nurture, support, and enrich life.

Values are that in life to which we assign worth. They inspire traditions and customs that embody our fundamental moral views. These social conventions are called mores (pronounced 'mor-ayz'). They are the unspoken and unquestioned ways of behaving in society.

Freedom and education, for example, are common social values. We want society to be free and educated. Consequently, unspoken rules bid us to teach our children and respect personal freedoms.

Values are not always what we want; we can also be opposed to certain values. This spurs different behavioral norms, such as avoidance and suppression of certain actions. It may also incite outright opposition to them. They are what society considers 'taboo'.

Certain varieties of sex (such as oral, anal, or homosexual) may fall into this category, as may certain sexual relations (adulterous, premarital, incestuous, etc.). Members of society are not only expected not to act on these values, they are often not even spoken of.

Not everyone shares the same values, nor do values remain the same in every generation. Many ancient cultures viewed sex as sacred; some modern religions see it as sinful. Victorian England had very conservative sexual values; hippies of the 60's had liberal ones. Even today, fundamentalists label it evil; free thinkers call it a pleasure.

Consequently, not everyone follows the same behavioral codes. Conservatives may repress their sexual desires while liberals openly act on theirs. Religious adherents may pray for redemption from lust, while sacred sex practitioners worship through Sacred Union.

Two questions arise from all this: what are true values, and why should we care?

Philosophers, theologians, commentators, and laypeople alike have debated the first issue for centuries. They cite all manner of justification for their views. Some say there is no perfect answer. In the end though, there is -- and it comes not on philosophical, religious, or moral grounds. It is purely utilitarian.

True values are those that fulfill their function: to support, nurture, and enrich life.

While there may yet be debate about which values accomplish that, it at least gives a performance standard for measure. If a value - and the mores it inspires - promotes life, it is true. If it restricts life, it is false. These can be seen by its effects in society.

Why should we care about true values? This answer is also practical, but it affects us in a very personal way.

We care about true values because we want the most from life. We desire the best opportunities for personal and societal growth. False values and the customs they breed stifle the freedom, creative expression, and progress of life. They are especially insidious because values and customs are pervasive, and go largely unquestioned. We unwittingly spread them among family and friends, and pass repressive ideas and habits down to our children. Thus false values stunt our present and future fulfillment as human beings.

Through false values, mores become less.

The Society for Sacred Sexuality promotes true values in every area of life. You can find these among the lessons on this website:

Holding and following true values in your own life is certainly vital. To the extent that you live in a free society, you can do so. But social values go beyond personal freedom and the laws of society. They impose unwritten laws on behavior. When values are true, these laws are barely seen, for they are in no way restrictive. Rather, they are helpful guides that shepherd you to success and fulfillment.

False values however, breed social restrictions. The bonds of these moral codes are just as restraining as the physical bars of prison. They may take the form of silent suppression, unspoken acts we must avoid. Or worse, they may bring outright ridicule, censure, opposition, and ostracization. They are closely, though erroneously (as we'll soon see) associated with good vs. evil behavior. In that, mores show their relation to moralism -- the judging of others' behavior.

The error of this, and its negative impact on individuals and society, is the topic of this lesson. This restrictive judgment is called 'false moralism'. By exposing it for what it is, society can more easily rid itself of this pervasive scourge.

FALSE MORALISM

It's important that we define our terms in order to clearly state the case against false social values and customs. It is a deep-rooted issue that stirs up much opinion and passion. So let's continue by defining moralism before rooting out its false expressions.

Morals are much like the values from which they stem, and may be defined in a similar practical way: that which promotes life. Morals are more personal than values though; they apply to our deepest values. We may value education and freedom, but it's not immoral if we don't pursue them. Moralism mainly applies to fundamental values, like human behavior and relations. It covers what we do, and with or to whom.

Therefore, we may define moralism as that which specifically promotes human life, or human nature. By contrast, false moralism denies or goes against human nature. Human nature is what we naturally follow when there is no external conditioning from society, nor self-imposed inhibition. It is our natural human tendency and desire.

Some may question the correlation drawn here between human life and human nature. Indeed, moralists typically argue that these are largely opposed -- that human nature goes against what we value in human life. They make this their basis for the moral conflict between good and evil.

But this is not the true moralist argument. This view, which stems mainly from western religion (particularly Christianity), originates in the idea of man's 'fall from grace'. Our fallen nature, the argument goes, opposes life.

Man, however, was created before any such fall, in 'God's image' no less. Whatever has become of our nature, it is ultimately - and fundamentally - of God. At its heart therefore, human nature aligns with life values, not against them.

A closer look at moralism clears up the confusion. Rather than splitting human nature from God's nature, moralism distinguishes between our higher and lower human nature, and seeks to inspire the higher one. Religion would define our higher nature as spiritual, and our lower one as 'animal' nature.

This certainly fits our definition of moralism: that which promotes human nature. Moralism seeks to raise base human nature to a more godly one. This is true moralism, and certainly laudable. Within this framework, moralism is good.

Where it falters though is when it separates higher and lower nature into two conflicting natures. Then it labels one 'good' and the other 'evil', one right and the other wrong. This leads to a slew of problems that you'll see later.

The fact remains that what we see as two distinct moral states are really two sides of one human nature. This explains why anything that denies human nature is false moralism.

Moralism, as we've defined, promotes human nature. How can something that denies human nature also promote it? False moralism contradicts the very intent of moralism. It is based on false principles.

When we pit good against evil in moral war we only fight ourselves. There is no separate evil to fight. We are waging war on our own lower nature.

Morality is a ladder we climb up, from lower nature to higher. When we mistake it for a fight between enemies, the entire dynamic between them shifts. Instead of inspiring lower nature to rise higher, we assail it, destroying the very rungs by which we would climb the ladder. We undercut the nature we would build on to become better human beings. We battle our own nature rather than bring out the best in it.

Different language may wake up Christian moralists: we create for ourselves a house divided.

The great English poet, William Blake, was an astute observer of religious moralism. Blake was against organized religion, but was not irreligious. He described his personal religion as the â€˜everlasting Gospelâ€™, which he saw as the pure teachings of Jesus Christ. Blake had this to say about dividing human nature into good and evil:

rahasya · Posted: February 27, 2006

A long time ago, one culture got the idea that all other peoples should do it their way too. That culture now dominates the planet. Signs it can be known by are: Ice in your drink, a state religion, money-at-interest and ownership of women.

Most of the great spiritual masters had something to say about the situation. Jesus forgave the adulterous woman and whipped the money changers. Mohammed spoke against alcohol, and banned his people from getting involved with usury. Stories of him and his nine wives also hint that he was more or less a tantric adept.

This doesn't make Christians avoid banks (though Muslims don't do too badly there) or forgive adultery of course, because the religion is subordinate to the culture which has absorbed and edited it to suit.

Seekers, artists, poets, mystics, tantrikas and free-thinkers reach a point in their lives where they are repelled by the culture's way, particularly how it attempts to regulate ownership of sexuality. There's a tendency to assume that everyone would be able to enjoy freedom if social constraints were removed. That's why anarchists bombed police offices and assasinated politicians. Also why communists in some places still make a ritual out of having sex in a public place on May Day.

My suggestion: Most people go along with the culture's way, and howerver much it may be out of unawareness, they are choosing it. It's an irritation to the seekers in the population, but has the positive effect of making us aware of our own urge to truth, more aware that the answers aren't likely to be found in the culture's institutions. The culture, I suggest, is useful in that it forces those with the potential, to wake up, and helps us recognise our peers by contrast with the pasha (pasha = old sanskrit, meaning those who are not due for awakening, for a few lifetimes yet).

People who will take direction from today's (or any other era's) politicians, who'll buy into the standard mainstream media's crap without investigating alternatives are not equipped to deal with existence, life, as it is. They don't want the truth, and will even kill in order to keep their point of view in line with what "everybody" knows, to hold on to the thin comfort of knowing that they are doing what they "should".
Noam Chomsky makes the point that fewer Americans at present, proportionately, access alternatives to the mainstream media than the number of Russians, under a totatalitarian regime, that read just one of the illegal counter-revolutionary publications.

I suggest to seekers that there's no point in getting into annoyance with the culture's way, no real kindness in telling those of a fixed mindset that they've got it wrong. To rub it in, I point out that seekers are numerically inferior, are disturbing to the culture, and are quite legitimately destroyed by it if they give offence. I tell them to drop their ideas of what "should be" and accept that what is, is. There's possibilities for influencing the culture, maybe making improvements, but only within a framework that the culture can accept.

When it comes to trying to get the culture to accept that a fundamental axiom of it's credo should be scrapped, it's not likely to be an easy process, and any gains will always be subject to conservative "snap back". This is why some of the culture's members react so badly to the sacred sexual. We challenge, just by existing, the basis of all ownership - ownership of the woman, and through that, her offspring. By twisting sexuality the way it does, the culture makes a lot of "productivity" and "consumption" happen. How many people buy a car, or clothing because it'll help them get laid - a male making it clear that he can pay - a female making it clear that she's "premium goods". If you look closely, you'll see that the fuel the culture runs on is sexual frustration. The culture is never going to appreciate any effort to attack it at it's base.

The zen guys knew this, and elegantly expressed it in their story of the lion, living among the sheep, believing it too was a sheep, until another lion saw it and helped. There's sheep, there's the wolves who herd them and prey on them, and, occasionally, there's lions. The sheep have a perfectly good place in the scheme of things, being what they are, and if you're a lion, only gratitude that they make fellow lions easier to spot is appropriate.

Those of us who have the potential for awakening, Samhadi, Moksha, whatever we call it, escape cultural control. We reject it's fundamentals, and don't easily fit in well with the "sheep". We're in the minority, severely so, and are marginalised by the culture in many ways. It sees us as "enemy" and it's not wrong. I believe it is a valuable lesson for us to pass through the culture's training, both by way of us discovering strength we'd otherwise never know about, and by way of developing a burning desire for truth. The sacred sexual path is the fastest path, but one has to go through what one has to go through. Faster doesn't mean easier, or less thourough.

Once awake, no variation on the main cultural theme is really more bother than any other. For an ahrat, there's the bliss of his own attainment, and scant regard for the body's comfort or survival, because it's purpose is complete. For a bodhisattva, the cultural background helps him notice who's available to be helped.

Things that are especially ugly, exploitative and cruel in the culture do annoy the enlightened masters, even the greats, but attempts at rectifying things are often messed up by their followers later, or get absorbed into the culture, which simply censors out whatever's threatening or neutralises the threat with childhood training. Christian sunday schools for instance, leave most kids with the impression that Jesus was pissed off at the market stall holders for trading on a Sunday, when good people should be in Church. Also the emphasis given to the adulterous woman story is not the forgiveness, but the "go and sin no more" line at the end of the story, implying, "I'll stone you myself next time, woman".

The cultural cycle of liberation and repression is just a couple of generations thing, with regional variations in which parts of the woman's body are covered from public view, giving even reproduced images of those parts "value".

That I'm currently taking full advantage of a liberal constitution to practice sacred sexuality openly, have a website to help those interested to find me and so on is fortunate, and may be a symptom of a general awakening in the culture itself. More likely, it's a temporary situation, and we'll be doing the secretive mystery school thing again some day.

We can tinker with the way the culture does ownership. It's probably more pleasant to be a regular modern American woman, with a repressed sexuality, convinced that her daughter should be socialised likewise, than a Muslim woman, represed sexually, that takes her daughter for a clitoridectomy. We can tinker with it, but the fundamentals will remain. What will be there, as long as the culture as such endures, is some way to prevent the woman's energy going beyond chakra 1 (a fear in the area of survival, associated with sex works well), a retail woman market (sex work, prostitution) and a wholesale woman market (marriage).

If the culture gets to accept sacred sexuality on the basis of how it's regulated, that regulation itself will entrench the culture's way and will mess seekers around by fooling some that the culture has a home for them. I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of certification or "qualifications" in our area. One knows a teacher by the movement one sees in the students. Some are teachers because they have great personal challenges in some areas, and supporting others in those areas advances their own healing. They teach best that which they most need to learn. (Buddha: If you would really learn a thing, teach it.) Others teach because they have completed the path, and have been persuaded (or it's in their aesthetic) to help. The first flavour is more helpful for 99% of the journey. The other fellow's generally the finishing school. Niether can in truth be assessed by "qualifications" or what their "peers" say. In the Buddhist tradition, the way "regular people" recognise the tatagata (enlightened being) is by his "marks". These are things like his stillness, grace, very pleasant body odour and so on. Addressing an awakened disciple, Buddha says â€œWherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud ; wherever there is no-possession of no-marks, there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no-marks as marks.â€ Every "condition" one could come up with to test can be learned just as a trick, with the right training. There's the fellow that can sit and watch outrageous hot xxx porn, tailored to his sexual history and be unmoved by it on account of his attainment, and there will be the fellow who is unaroused because he's managed to torture himself, twist his sexuality into compliance. Someone seldom ejaculates, even after prolonged coitus, comfortably choosing how the energy in his body moves, and someone else has developed his musculature to the point where he clenches up and semen is retained, erection is maintained.

Qualifications based on data-retention of a curriculum are just silly, in all fields, but especially in ours. A medical degree doesn't make somone a healer. Niether will passing some examination - written, oral or genital - make someone a tantrika.

The general population could benefit from some of the techniques that we use, but it's seekers that we're here for. Learning discernment, developing a bull**** detector and maintaining an openness to truth are skills they need to develop in order to find us. In business terms, our market is around 2% of the general population. Most of that 2% aren't on a specifically sexual path, and need relatively little work, mainly release of repression.

Seekers will always need to develop a centered will and a degree of awareness in order to find their teachers. The journey through the distractions of the "world", the help found in others on the path, and finding their teachers are wonderful archetypal struggles, great preparation. I believe we may have to be careful not to be too available! Historically, Tantra schools tended to get in trouble when they got into the business of dealing with the general population, simply providing a healthier and more enjoyable experience than "regular" sex workers. What's done them in is a combination of their sudden wealth (attracts insincere friendships and greedy, insincere disciples, provokes jealousy from once friendly religions), the angry brothel owners' association (obviously), the police (they miss their quid pro quo badly, one of their very few worthwhile perks), and the culture's elite (the "market value" of their daughters is ruined).

The only successful "deal with the culture" that I've heard of was the Indian Tantra Temples being available to heal soldiers physically and emotionally after battle. I wouldn't be comfortable with healing anyone's soldiers these days. I believe that trauma needs to get back into the population, so they feel some of what they politically support. Good feedback.

Maybe sports? Can you imagine what a few Dakinis could do for a team's motivation, their focus, their totality! It would be the mother of all distractions, a perversion of what should probably be our principles, but fun, and coaches in the major sports have big budgets when such a powerful advantage is available.

Another very profitable area could be the world of "personal coaching". Dakini empowered executives... we could have the corporations destroying the planet at twice the rate they are going now, thereby hastening mankind's next maturity test. I don't know if this would be a good thing or not. There's also the strong possibility that the Dakini in question would get the exec's heart all open and vulnerable and quench his repression-driven greed. This may mean it wouldn't be that good for business.

If seekers are really our only legitimate market, it may be useful to take the approach of being a persecuted religious movement, that we have a different sexual way from the culture at large, and just want their passive tolerance for what we do with "each other", not everybody, generally. It's true that to be available to "our" 2%, the 98% get to be aware that we exist. Maybe we need to explain that we'll only do these strange things with "our people", however we define that.

Gary Joseph · Posted: February 28, 2006

Some very perceptive points.

My take on it is simply that everyone can only to do what are destined to do, led by their own level of awareness. The enlightened cannot help but to work to awaken the world, and all too often the world cannot help but to fight them.

I heard a story about a saint in India who kept trying to remove a bug that was trying to cross the road in heavy traffic. Every time he took it aside, it crawled back in the road. When asked why he kept at this futile act, he replied simply, "It's his nature to destroy himself, and mine to save him."

It's fine to say we should or shouldn't try to awaken society, but when it comes down to it, it's in our being.

Jesus didn't stop, despite knowing they would crucify him for it. Everyone follows their own nature, and the chips fall where they may.

rahasya · Posted: February 28, 2006

Gary Joseph · Posted: March 1, 2006

Yes, we do what we do because we love doing it, whether it brings "success" or not. True success is measured by following the Truth in our own hearts. That alone has all positive outward effects, whether it 'looks' like success or not.

===========

[ MODERATOR'S NOTE: The last portion of rahasya's post above has been copied to the Legal Sacred Sex Forum for its relevance to that Topic. A reply is posted there. The post can be viewed here. ]