victims of torture / cruelty

Hello, Slava.

Your question begins with an unstated assumption, that there is a single "Tantric attitude." Tantra has evolved over thousands of years and traveled all over the world, resulting in numerous traditions or "schools" of Tantra, each having its own viewpoint on a variety of things. Nobody, including myself and everyone else on this or any other website or in any book can speak for Tantra. We can only represent those schools of Tantra of which we are aware.

That being said, and with that understanding, from the traditions I have studied and practiced, the question you ask seems to be more related to concepts of karma--which is associated with many, if not most Tantric traditions--more than Tantra per se.

There is a Westernized concept of what might be called "neo-karma" that is very popular. According to this belief, karma is not simply the working of action and reaction for the purpose of educating a person toward a more spiritual life. According to neo-karma, the purpose is reward and punishment for actions, and, therefore, can be ameliorated by each person's intent. For example, if person X kills person Y, but didn't mean to do so (perhaps it was an accident), then the effect of karma is far less than if person X had intended to kill Y.

Traditionally, however, karma does not involve intent whatsoever. It can be thought of as dropping a rock into the center of a calm pond. Waves--karma--expand from the point of impact of the rock into the water. It doesn't matter if you intended to drop the rock or not. The only thing that matters is that the rock is dropped.

But let's bring this into a more to the point example. Assume I took an axe and cut off your arm. Chances are you would say that it was a horrible act. But what if we were a week away from medical help and you had received a serious cut to your arm which became infected resulting in gangrene. The only way to save your life would be to remove your arm, and the axe was the best tool at hand for doing this. In this case, although you would certainly be upset for losing your arm, you might thank me for saving your life.

So here's the thing: the act was the same; it is our interpretation of the act based on information we have that changes. Acts are simply that: acts.

By this viewpoint, the concept of "vice" makes no sense. It is simply an action or set of actions on which we have placed a value judgement. Many people today would consider prostitution, the selling of sex, a "vice." Yet, in the past, in certain areas of the practice of young women selling sex to a man and then turning the money over to the temple of the goddess, was an honored duty. So what is the selling of sex, a vice or a sacred duty? Some people consider oral copulation or homosexuality to be a vice. Many others do not.

But let's get back to karma. Perhaps a parent beats a child and you step in and stop the parent in a slowly accelerating way, starting with talking and eventually leading to the crippling of the abusing parent so they could no longer harm the child. You would experience the karmic result of crippling that person. Perhaps the beatings of the child lead the child to start a movement against child abuse which saves millions of children from abuse. Your stopping the abuse of that one child would be responsible for the abuse of millions.

So in my opinion--and that's from the point of view of a Tantric, not as a spokesperson for all of Tantra--the concept is to separate action from interpretation of the meaning of the action. Actions are just that. They are not "vice," they are simply actions. You or I interpret them as good or evil. Person L blows himself up killing hundreds of people. To some he is an evil terrorist. To others he is a honorable, self-sacrificing freedom-fighter. To me, he just did an act. My response is going to be based on my understanding of karma. This certainly is the what Gandhi acted. It is possible to stand in opposition to acts you believe are wrong by not committing actions that result in unwanted actions of karma.

The goal, then, is to achieve a life that is no longer moved and directed as the result of karma and not incurring karma. I do not claim to be at that level. In my current consciousness, I'm not even sure I'd want to be there. What I do know is that if I saw someone abusing a child or raping a woman, I would do whatever is necessary to stand up and oppose that person, including, if necessary, causing that person physical harm or even killing that person. I would do so knowing that I would incur karmic reaction if I harm or kill that person. And I would do so willingly and without hesitation.

You say that "being fully present to the moment means surrendering to suffering." Well, if you walked up to someone and scratched them deeply with your fingernails, that person would probably object strongly for the harm you have done to them. However, if you were both in the passionate throes of sexual activity, such a person might find that pain highly pleasurable. The scratching is simply an action. Interpreting it as pain or pleasure is just an interpretation. What one person considers suffering another might consider pleasurable. Tying someone to a cross and whipping them is torture to one person and pleasure leading to "bottom space" to another.

Does that mean you SHOULD surrender to suffering? I don't think so. But that is sort of like the question asked of Conscientious Objectors back in the 1960s: If you are in a room and there's a button there, and you know that pushing that button would kill a person preventing him from pushing a button that would launch a nuclear weapon that would kill a million people, would you push your button and kill him? The question is a false question because it's totally imaginary. How did you get into this room with its magic button? What led you to get there? Why did you make stupid decisions that led you to a position where you are surrendering to suffering?

One of the keys to blockages to freedom is the klesha known as avidya, ignorance. To reach a point where you are in a position where you are suffering, you would have had to make several decisions that were based on ignorance. Thus, by adopting what I would consider to be a Tantric view, you would examine each decision to determine what the correct action should be. The result is that you should never end up in a position where suffering is inevitable. There is no suffering to which you would surrender because you're never in such a position. And, as I wrote, if I saw suffering in someone else, I would work to stop that suffering, even if it would result in unwanted karma.

Your question seems simple, but is highly complex. I hope what I've replied here will give you a general and broad introduction to dealing with the concept. It is far from complete and, again, it is just one Tantric viewpoint.

Namaste!

how could the tantric paradigm re: torture&cruelty be anything but of complete rejection and intervention ?

Miss Predeslava,

You want to be as healthy and as balanced as you can be. Then when tragedy or adversity or excitement or violation or romance comes,... then watch and see how you act, react, respond. It could be a big mistake to rehearse your emotions before the act takes place. Let it happen. Being one with yourself you'll know how to be. And it's OK to be correct,... and to reject evil, as best you know what that is for yourself.

One person's bed of roses is another's bed of nails is another's sundance for you.

Picture the Nataraj, the Dancing Shiva, for whom it's all a big cosmic dance.

Om namah Shivaya
b!

There have been many enlightened masters who have experienced torture and mistreatment from others. Many serious spiritual practitioners have found themselves in situations where they have been beaten and tortured, as has been the case for “Any monks, nuns, and lamas who were caught were disrobed, imprisoned, humiliated, beaten, and tortured mercilessly” according to Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche, an enlightened master born in Tibet, speaking of why he fled Tibet for his life.

One cannot assume that simply by being “enlightened” or by maintaining higher vibrational levels, one can avoid all physically painful situations with the idea that if we are truly enlightened, we would not attract such situations. This is simply not the case. Buddha died from accidentally eating poison mushrooms – a rather physically torturous way to die but he maintained a level of non-attachment to the physical suffering which allowed him to die “peacefully”.

What a “tantric (if one is going to use general terms) attitude" in the face of physical pain, trauma, etcetera means is realizing that what is taking place in that moment *is* what it *is* and observing what *is* without judgment. In bringing focused, aware attention to the present moment in this way – we free ourselves to act appropriately from a deeper state of presence – that of *Being*. Thus, we can act appropriately in whatever situation we find ourselves rather than reacting from a state of fear.

Physical pain may still be present but the emotional and mental “suffering” which fear and the attachment to causes and outcomes fear brings with it, is removed. A state of peace can then be maintained even in the midst of chaos.

Now, as Shambhalanth pointed out – this is all far more easily said than done.

If we define 'victim' as one who has not actively, or through significant, avoidable negligence, created the situation they find themselves in, we have a hope to avoid endless point and counterpoint as to how we are all responsible for and could have avoided whatever situation we find ourselves in. If we further accept that there are situations that endure over sizable (in mortal terms) time periods, and that some such situations, once instigated do not afford us with the realistic possibility to undue or substantially remedy, then we have a victim in a situation of continuing suffering.

In this way we can cut closer to the heart of the dilemma first stated. Whatever the genesis, circumstances arise, (and I would argue, with significant regularity and considerable demand to be dealt with), and it behooves a holistic world view and system of practicing belief to encompass the circumstance and address the matter of the victim (and observers of the victim/circumstance) can successfully ply the tenets of their practice.

I believe the first great stumbling block, once the hypothetical scenario has been agreed upon, is the rampant blurring of the lines between 'being' and 'doing'. The symbol, howsoever powerful and evocative, is not the thing. (Conversely, contrary to what many who gain and expound that wisdom presume - the symbol IS 'A thing'...but that too is another discussion altogether.)

While I personally confess to holding beliefs as to the nature of good and evil, I find myself far to frequently in the company of 'pragmatic' nihilist--existentialist--two-dimensional-zen thinkers to dwell on that topic if there is anything else to be accomplished in a given week. That said, and largely for that reason, I have taken to a more defensible-in-discourse position that there is 'ascending' and 'entropic'. This allows one to take into account the various perspectives on a given situation, from the cosmic perspective, without necessarily claiming to know what that is.

It also nudges us into thinking of 'what we do' as discrete from 'what we are', without denying the inextricable interconnection between the two. If you would indulge me in taking temporary liberty with the Tantra moniker, I would propose that 'Tantra' might best be considered the Symbol for the Body of Belief, 'Tantric State' might best be considered the label for a practitioners aspired (or actual) state of being, and 'Tantric Practice' might best indicate the collection of discernible motives for actions, actions taken/avoided, and anticipated and actual outcomes of the actions/inactions.

In my view of ascension, we are, for whatever reason and with whatever chances of success, tasked with (and offered the great adventure of 'free will' to pursue) a journey from the glorious universe in which we began, through the universe(s) we are in, to a new and somehow 'ascended' universe to come. I am full of theories, but none I am prepared to claim as truth, or put forth in debate at the moment, as to the nature of the 'ascended' universe, but use the working definition of 'that which is to be hoped for".

Out of this view we can then (and most of us probably have to varying degrees) suppose there to be possible paths we can endeavor to follow, that will lead us in that direction. We can view the energy we put forth as sacrifice or investment, and we can think of the subset of paths within our vision as blessed choices, or woeful limitations - this choice is PART of our application of will. Choosing the former affords us with much greater opportunity to prosper along one or more of the paths at hand, BUT we can certainly hold out, stubbornly insisting on access to another path...that too is a choice at our hands...one that is often indiscernible from the "do nothing' path that each of us generally has. HOWEVER, that is the 'from the sky' view...on Terra firma we realize that it is all about the actions we take.

More often than not, when we ask for 'help' from others we are seeking advice or information to help us make decisions about what actions we could, should and will or will not take. Even when we are 'just curious' about the knowledge, opinions and feelings of others, we are still busy storing the data gathered for use in making future decisions.

Following in that context then, in the face of "extreme vice" (and definitely not speaking on behalf of Tantra in any of the senses noted above), the individual's chosen (and/or yet to be chosen) paths, allow for (and/or extract) a compliment of available (in)actions, from among which we WILL choose and perform.

On the rare occasions when someone asks for my advice, I invariably offer that we should try to do what we believe will contribute most to the overall 'ascension' of our sentient community, but emphatically reminding them that there are often many alternative ways to benefit the big picture, and that the immediate 'good of the one' can, does and should, often outweigh the possible future 'good of the many'. If I kill a killer but save a bloodline I buy the fuller race some more time. If I spare a killer but see that he's safely incarcerated, and he is studied with a great degree of success, gaining usable insight into how to help others NOT end up like him, that too has rather likely contributed to the 'ascension' goal.