Good points, macpanther, especially in regard to the "semi-permeable" boundaries of organizations. No Anusara teacher I have ever met has seemed "closed"--in fact, just the opposite.

While we eagerly await Ramesh's book, there are a couple of books that focus on the archetypal nature of Buddhist Tantra by Rob Preece. One is "Preparing for Tantra" and the other is "The Psychology of Buddhist Tantra" --in case you're interested, Mike.

Preece is a psychotherapist in addition to being a practicing Tibetan Buddhist.

Of course, this is Buddhist Tantra so it has the idiosyncracies of that spiritual lineage which will have some differences from Ramesh's Tantra (but I believe Ramesh agrees that the essentials are the same).

I can be annoying too, Mike; just ask my wife. :)

No apologies necessary, but I appreciate it all the same. You bring up interesting questions, such as (my paraphrase) "can you have a version of Tantra that is stripped of its original cultural trappings (deities, religious ceremonies, etc.)?"

I don't know. I think it is more constructive to look at Tantra has a set of technologies rather than a belief system. Based on that, it seems possible. It would be interesting to engage Ramesh and others more on this question.

No problem, Mike. It is hard to get your entire perspective in a comment stream, after all. We probably share more views that we might think!

I agree, Mike.

I think it was obvious that my quip about climate change and Lindsey Lohan wasn't my actual argument but an attempt at levity. Somehow, of course, I think you knew that.

"There are people who say there is no God," Einstein said. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."

I suppose we could go back and forth with Einstein quotes, but I think it is also obvious that in your quote Einstein is speaking of the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and not his own concept of God which was more like Spinoza's.

Which is back to my essential point: we shouldn't attempt to label a person's understanding of spiritual concepts as "primitive mythology" if we don't understand the contexts in which the concepts are being used or how the concepts have been (re)defined.

I don't think equating someone's spiritual practices (which are often more sophisticated than you might imagine) with "primitive mythology" is moving past prejudice. I don't see Ramesh's Tantra supporting primitive mythology.

I don't have an issue with the scientific materialist view--it has its place. I just don't think it should be applied everywhere. That's the category mistake.

I also think the notion of eliminating religion to free the world of prejudice and hate is a fairly moonbeam notion in itself. Religion is not the only fount of irrational thinking, after all.

Agreed. And Einstein was wise enough not to make categorical mistakes such as applying science to define spirituality or spirituality to define science. That's not to say that some aspects of each may not support the other, of course.

What I see frequently in this thread are scientific materialists attempting to reduce (or deride) spiritual concepts based on lack of physical evidence. Unfortunately the logic is also reduced--everything is either/or. Excluded middle indeed!

The irony, of course, is that they are here. They need something outside of their physical world. Argument fires their . . . ahem . . . spirits.

As always, Julian, your labeling (bullshit, pseudo-intellectual, etc.) is appreciated. Frankly I don't have any problem with anyone having some idea of some reality beyond the body. Einstein had such ideas. What is tiresome is the attempt to reduce such concepts to mocking caricatures because they don't present immediate empirical evidence.

Ramesh,

Great article.

One comment though regarding reality and illusion. Often we use the term "illusion" as "unreal" but other times we use it in the sense that we simply cannot see reality fully--we have an imperfect or incomplete picture (Plato's cave, for example). We have a representation, but there is a greater reality outside the ability of our senses to see them.

I don't see the latter perspective (that there is a reality that we can't necessarily see through our basic senses or cognition) as a dual perspective (vs. non-dual) but I'm curious what you thought of this in relation to Tantra.

-Matt