|
"But were they?" I interjected. "The Buddhists, as many other religions, deny the transient pleasures in exchange for the eternal good. But are they right? Could it not be, Indira, that the ecstasy in sexual intimacy, as transient as it is, is but a sparkling preview of the eternal? Isn't sexual intimacy primarily a mental thing, a spiritual force, a force that draws us together as a people? 'Politically' it divides us, but spiritually it unites us. The Buddhists may deny the very thing they seek. Maybe we should visit the temples of Khajuraho first."
Indira nodded and blushed. "You are right," she said. "The temples have puzzled me. They are monuments of stones that are giving form to human emotion in the erotic blending of spiritual and physical love, suggesting that both are the same and the process involved is spiritual. Why should we speak of spiritual ecstasy only when we touch upon a great truth in scientific discovery? Why wouldn't sexual ecstasy be any different? Sexual emotions come from the mind. The elation unfolds in the mind. Without the mind nothing happens. In fact, as you know in India a kiss is considered a sexual act. It's an intimacy unfolding its welcome to one-another. Isn't a kiss an appropriate greeting, then? Could there be a greater demonstration of our mutual acceptance of one-another than a kiss that is also deemed a sexual intimacy?"
"Wow!" I said interrupting her. "Is that the real meaning behind your saying, I greet kiss you and I kiss you? Is it a sexual touching that is wholly appropriate, because we are sexual beings, which then opens the door to more of it by it being an introduction of our sexuality?"
"I'm trying to honor our history were sexual ecstasy was once held high. The Kama Sutra doesn't quite cut it. It is too deeply interwoven with caste-oriented rules. It defines a woman's value by her caste rather than by her humanity. That closes the door to every spiritual aspect that is inherent in the sexual union. And so I think something has been lost. Sex has been made cheap. Maybe the Buddhist is right to close the door if what one finds behind it is cheap. On the other hand Christ Jesus didn't close the door. He defended a woman that had sex outside her marriage. She stood accused of a spiritual ecstasy that the Kama Sutra wouldn't allow. She had thrown away the rulebook and allowed love to be what it is, a spiritual bond, unfolding by its own rules. There was apparently nothing cheap about what the woman had done. On that ground Christ Jesus defended the woman against all the laws of the land that demanded her to be killed. He simply asked the accusers, 'are you human beings? Do you not see in your heart that nothing happened that you wouldn't do yourself when moved by the same spiritual impetus?' He told them that whoever was prepared to stand before God and declare that he is not a human being would be free to pick up a stone and cast it at her. Otherwise he should drop the charge. And that's what all of them did. They dropped the charge and walked away. He said to the woman afterwards, 'has no man condemned you?' She replied, 'no man.' He answered her, 'neither do I condemn you, go your way and be careful not to become entangled again with the Kama Sutra rules. Of course he didn't refer to the Kama Sutra rules. They didn't exist then. The rules came out of the imperial domain which defined all women of a lower caste or grade to be freely accessible to be abused as cheap playthings and for pleasure only, while those of a higher caste were deemed to be off limit, as were the women that one doesn't own. Christ Jesus had defended the woman against this kind of nonsense, because it had made the spiritual domain cheap, and had shackled love. He had no choice but to defend the woman as a matter of principle. To do less would have been a case of self-denial. And that's how it really happened, Peter. You can read the whole story in the Bible, in the Book of John, Chapter 8, verse 1-10."
Next Page
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -
||
|
