Friday, March 25, 2011
If a Tantric Buddhist were an object-oriented ontologist, this is what she'd say.
“Real objects are female Buddhas. Real, withdrawn, dark, molten, vajra-like.
“Sensual objects are male Buddhas. Brilliant, evanescent, illusion-like, having form and color.”
(Notice the nice inversion of normal Western phallocentric parameters here.)
She would continue:
“The real and the appearing aspects of objects exist in inseparable union. We never encounter a real object devoid of sensual characteristics, because that is what encounter means: some sensual exchange takes place. Likewise we never encounter a bundle of sensual appearances that can't be traced to an object.
“Another way to put this: what is real (yeshe, wisdom) is female. The way to realize this is skillful means, male (upaya). Confusion is simply not seeing reality as it is. The path is to treat all entities as Buddhas.
“In Tantra this is represented as female and male Buddhas copulating.”