Hi everyone,
I just wondered if anyone uses their healing energy during sex?
That was short and sweet 
Publisher [sm=wave.gif]
How does Reki and Tantric differ with regard to this topic?
I don't know much about Reiki, but I know a lot about Tantra and the Tao. As I understand it, Reiki involves channeling cosmic energy for healing. In Tantra (whether it is Indian Tantra, Buddhist Tantra, Tibetan Tantra or the Taoist traditions), you are also working with energies, which originally emanated from the Cosmos or The Tao.
In Tantra and Tao you first harness the cosmic energies (Chi or Prana) primarily by breath, store and channel the energies through the bodies chakra or meridian systems. Having harnessed them, you then experience the pleasure of the interplay of energies, the yin and the yang during sex, and possibly attain union or become one with the Tao or the source of energy.
The difference between Reiki and Tantra I suppose is that true Tantric and Taoist traditions acknowledge the cosmic energies as inherently sexual, and are happy to enjoy them, whereas most Reiki practitioners I suspect would deny any sexuality, or shy away from suggestions, and in any case have little training on sexual energies.
This is possibly because Reiki is a more 'modern' energy work. The modern world is built on Christian/Catholic hatreds and fears of sex. We either consider sex to be sacred (in matrimony) or consider sex to be demeaning, evil and hence there is little or no sexual focus in Reiki which generally would involve working with persons one is not married to.
I think visiting the village shops (lol at expression!) is recommended once a week but without ejaculation.
The 'without ejaculation' bit is not entirely true from the Taoist perspective, which are generally based on the Yellow Emperor, and his 3 female sexual advisor's. There is a story that on one occasion the Yellow Emperor confused by the concepts of 'sparing vital essence' and 'regulating leakage', addressed his doubts to the Plain Girl and got this reply:
Some men are strong, some are weak, some men are old and others are in their prime. Each should live according to his own vitality and not try to force the joys of sex. Forcing joy is harmful.
Thus a robust male of 20 may ejaculate twice daily, but an emaciated one should do so no more than once daily.
A 30-year-old male may ejaculate once a day, but only once every two days if he's an inferior specimen.
A flourishing man of 40 may emit semen once every three days, but if he's weak he may do so only once every four days.
A robust man of 50 may ejaculate once every five days, but only once every ten days if he is weak.
A 60-year-old man in good health may emit once every ten days, or once every 20 days if his health is poor.
At 70, a robust man emit once a month, but a weak one should no long emit semen at all.
Buddhist Tantra
In Tantra (whether it is Indian Tantra, Buddhist Tantra, Tibetan Tantra or the Taoist traditions), you are also working with energies, which originally emanated from the Cosmos or The Tao.
In Tantra and Tao you first harness the cosmic energies (Chi or Prana) primarily by breath, store and channel the energies through the bodies chakra or meridian systems. Having harnessed them, you then experience the pleasure of the interplay of energies, the yin and the yang during sex, and possibly attain union or become one with the Tao or the source of energy.
The difference between Reiki and Tantra I suppose is that true Tantric and Taoist traditions acknowledge the cosmic energies as inherently sexual, and are happy to enjoy them, whereas most Reiki practitioners I suspect would deny any sexuality, or shy away from suggestions, and in any case have little training on sexual energies.
This is possibly because Reiki is a more 'modern' energy work. The modern world is built on Christian/Catholic hatreds and fears of sex. We either consider sex to be sacred (in matrimony) or consider sex to be demeaning, evil and hence there is little or no sexual focus in Reiki which generally would involve working with persons one is not married to.
Hi James
I'd just like to clarify some of your points about Tantra and more specifically Tantra within the Buddha Dharma as I understand it.
I think you have to be careful about saying that prana/prajna emanates from anything in Buddhism. With caveats that I admit, Buddhist philosophy generally rejects notions of an ultimate source of being. Prana/prajna is referred to in Buddhist Tantra in various contexts including being the winds of subtle energy that course through the channels of the subtle body. In Sutra it is usually translated as wisdom.
Buddhist sources, again with certain caveats, generally avoid the idea of "union with the source". The enlightened state may however be described as "non-dualistic". The idea of union with the source is part of what was rejected by the Buddha's original position, and basis of all Buddhist philosophy, which rejects the ideas of atman (a soul which transmigrates from reincarnation to reincarnation) and Brahman and therefore the idea of union of atman and Brahman as the ultimate destination of the transmigrating soul.
Buddhist do not accept anything as inherently anything! It therefore cannot really be said that Buddhist Tantra accepts that prana/prajna is inherently sexual. What can be said is that Buddhist Tantra aims at transmuting sexual energy into wisdom energy (prana/prajna) and the enjoyment of blissful realisation is said to be attained by high level practitioners in tantric sexual union (where the release of semen is not supposed to take place at all). However, sexual energy is only one of various energies for example the energy of anger, fear, desire etc that is transformed in Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism into wisdom energy.
And Reiki comes out of a form of Japanese Buddhism that, as I understand it, incorporates key tantric ideas!
Sorry if all this sounds a bit pedantic but there is a great deal of confusion around Tantra in Buddhism which is not primarily about sex at all.
Norbu
This is possibly because Reiki is a more 'modern' energy work. The modern world is built on Christian/Catholic hatreds and fears of sex. We either consider sex to be sacred (in matrimony) or consider sex to be demeaning, evil and hence there is little or no sexual focus in Reiki which generally would involve working with persons one is not married to.
I disagree with this statement here. There may not be any explicit sexual focus in Reiki, but that certainly doesn’t mean that the practice is hostile towards it. In a professional situation, such as a workshop or a treatment, sexual contact with the client or student would indeed be very inappropriate, in the same way that it would be considered inappropriate in a multitude of other situations. This kind of conduct does not emerge from some kind of post-Christian sexual shame, but out of respect for the people you’re working with, and for their privacy and personal space.
In a practitioner’s personal life though, such restrictions don’t really apply. Much in the same way that one’s free to walk around in the nude in one’s home, but maybe not in the office! I think that Reiki can be of enormous benefit to the sexual lives of its practitioners: even if they don’t use it in a direct sexual context, I’m sure that good health, high energy levels, and a deep connection to spirit are all quite conducive to a fulfilling sex life with one’s partner(s).
Reiki may be a modern healing tradition, but it has very little to do with Christian hostility towards sex. While it’s essentially a non-religious system, it was developed by a Tendai Buddhist, and has much more in common with Buddhist thought than with Christian or Catholic ideology.
Hi Norbu,
Thanks for you comments.
I think you have to be careful about saying that prana/prajna emanates from anything in Buddhism. With caveats that I admit, Buddhist philosophy generally rejects notions of an ultimate source of being. Prana/prajna is referred to in Buddhist Tantra in various contexts including being the winds of subtle energy that course through the channels of the subtle body. In Sutra it is usually translated as wisdom.
When a Yogi does his paranayama, he consciously harnesses prana (or life force) from source or spirit. His aim is to become one with the source of the prana, life force. This is what Yoga means - union with the divine. When a Taoist does his Chi Gung, he also likewise harnesses Chi that originly is manifested from the Tao - or the source.
Buddha was taught by Yogis, he was a Hindu Prince. He practiced meditation exactly as practiced by the Yogis, and he achieved enlightenment from following this practice. He then taught the same practice to his followers, along with the insights that he obtained about the nature of reality.
Modern Buddhist teaching may not focus on this now, and may say all sorts of things attributed to Gautama, but that is not necessarily the entire truth.
Buddhist sources, again with certain caveats, generally avoid the idea of "union with the source". The enlightened state may however be described as "non-dualistic". The idea of union with the source is part of what was rejected by the Buddha's original position, and basis of all Buddhist philosophy, which rejects the ideas of atman (a soul which transmigrates from reincarnation to reincarnation) and Brahman and therefore the idea of union of atman and Brahman as the ultimate destination of the transmigrating soul.
I believe that it is not correct to say that he rejected the idea of union - no matter what Buddhist sources say. Buddhist philosophy that I am familiar with does not reject the idea of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a fundamental part of Tibetan Buddhism for example, the current Dalai Lama is considered the Re-incarnation of Chenrezi.
Buddhist do not accept anything as inherently anything! It therefore cannot really be said that Buddhist Tantra accepts that prana/prajna is inherently sexual.
The Buddha said that "All things are impermanent", all things exist in Maya. This though is the same as Yogic/Hindu belief. I believe that Buddhist Tantra does accept that prana manifests as male and female, yin and yang, positive and negative.
What can be said is that Buddhist Tantra aims at transmuting sexual energy into wisdom energy (prana/prajna) and the enjoyment of blissful realisation is said to be attained by high level practitioners in tantric sexual union (where the release of semen is not supposed to take place at all).
There is no such thing as 'wisdom energy' as I see it, though, yes tantric sexual union is enjoyable and blissful. It can be attained by anyone if they set their heart and focus on it.
However, sexual energy is only one of various energies for example the energy of anger, fear, desire etc that is transformed in Vajrayana (Tantric) Buddhism into wisdom energy.
I would say that sexual energy is the mother and father of all other manifestations of energy like anger, fear, desire etc. In my experience Tantra is not about transforming sexual energy to wisdom energy, rather it is about becoming one with the energy or rather one with the source of the energy.
And Reiki comes out of a form of Japanese Buddhism that, as I understand it, incorporates key tantric ideas!
Reiki as I see it is asexual, whereas Tantra is pro-sexual - though they both work with Chi/Prana.
Sorry if all this sounds a bit pedantic but there is a great deal of confusion around Tantra in Buddhism which is not primarily about sex at all.
There is a hindi expression that says: "The Halva that doesn't have butter in it, isen't Halva, it's shiit"
One could say the same about any Tantra that is devoid of sex.
A refutation
Hi James
Have a look at:
I make no apology in asserting you know very little about Buddhism despite your claims.
I am satisfied that the reader should find out for themselves but I will disect one of your points as this is a public forum in which you have made erroneous claims:
I stated (quoted by you):
Buddhist sources, again with certain caveats, generally avoid the idea of "union with the source". The enlightened state may however be described as "non-dualistic". The idea of union with the source is part of what was rejected by the Buddha's original position, and basis of all Buddhist philosophy, which rejects the ideas of atman (a soul which transmigrates from reincarnation to reincarnation) and Brahman and therefore the idea of union of atman and Brahman as the ultimate destination of the transmigrating soul.
You responded:
I believe that it is not correct to say that he rejected the idea of union - no matter what Buddhist sources say. Buddhist philosophy that I am familiar with does not reject the idea of reincarnation. Reincarnation is a fundamental part of Tibetan Buddhism for example, the current Dalai Lama is considered the Re-incarnation of Chenrezi.
Of course Buddhism does not reject reincarnation! Reincarnation is a tenet of the belief system. You demonstrate quite cleary you do not understand the Buddhist position which renounces the existence of atman and Brahman. Buddhism beleives there is a continuum of mind stream from reincarnation to reincarnation and that this mindstream does not have an intrinsic self or fixed identity and as such is not a "soul". This Buddhist position is called anatman.
You may well feel this is sophistry but it is the basis of what makes Buddhism different from any other religion. This at least is the opinion of the Dalai Lama who made this point very clearly at the start of the teachings in Glasgow I attended four years ago.
Finally, my intention is not to cause you unecessary anger at what I have said here. I have said what I have said here in the hope you will stop promoting what you are promoting as having anything to do with Buddhism and hope that the effect of refutation of your claims merely reduces the potential for misunderstanding that might arise from what you appear to be promoting.
Norbu
Hi Norbu,
Of course Buddhism does not reject reincarnation! Reincarnation is a tenet of the belief system.
Glad that there is something we can agree on!
You demonstrate quite cleary you do not understand the Buddhist position which renounces the existence of atman and Brahman. Buddhism beleives there is a continuum of mind stream from reincarnation to reincarnation and that this mindstream does not have an intrinsic self or fixed identity and as such is not a "soul". This Buddhist position is called anatman.
Anatman means "no self". It is a Sanskrit term, and is found all over the place in Hindu scriptures like the Upanishads and Vedantas. Gautama did not coin a new term, or a new 'Buddhist Position".
This is a fact, no mater what Buddhist scholars might say or believe.
Neither did Gautama reject ataman (self) just because he talked about the no-self. Buddha remained silent on this when specifically asked this question - ie is there a self or only no-self.
Silence does not mean rejection. He was silent because you need to see for yourself - there can not be one without the other. It is not possible for there to be a "no self" if there is no one, no 'self' there to know or be aware of this fact.
Gautama did not reject concepts of Paramatman, Brahman, Ishwar, Bhagwan, which are names for God or the don-dual 'substance', or the essence of all things. It would be the same as the term "Tao" or the 99 names for God in Islamic thoughts.
You may well feel this is sophistry but it is the basis of what makes Buddhism different from any other religion.
I believe that in its essence or true form, Buddhism is the same as other religions - or in other words all religions in essence are the same, its just words and interpretations that divide people.
This at least is the opinion of the Dalai Lama who made this point very clearly at the start of the teachings in Glasgow I attended four years ago.
Finally, my intention is not to cause you unecessary anger at what I have said here. I have said what I have said here in the hope you will stop promoting what you are promoting as having anything to do with Buddhism and hope that the effect of refutation of your claims merely reduces the potential for misunderstanding that might arise from what you appear to be promoting.
The Dalai Lama knows what he has been taught - I imagine though that his training did not cover Tantra or sex, so he is not a necessarily the world authority on the subject.
I'm not angry - happy that you have raised these points. I'm not claiming anything either.
healing energy is made up of three demenions that complete the placement of the proceess of of the mixing to bring about the power that is intentions of placement of the creative power so with the right process of intellectual, sexual, emotional so all or one can complete the provential process of placifiying the expressive endevors of the mistical creativity that completes the process of the energys being sexual or other healing measure this is complete with the laws of creative process ....Gypsee
Hi Publisher
I just wondered if anyone uses their healing energy during sex?
You asking explicitly question, but - as you can see, answers are very wide.
Every time when two person make love/sex with respect, sensibillity, patience, simpathy...they heal each other. On that way, they rich and rise Love inside them, which was the most potent healing energy in the Universe.
But this question inside hide one more question which every of us asking oneself - "is a sex good or bad for my spiritual practise, can I nestle him, or fight with him? If I conscioussly waive sex - in that case am I loser or winer"?
It seems that answer on that question arise from our basic intention why we doing our spiritual practise. Do you we looking only for better life, or we just folowing our inner "voice", wherever he lead us.
Great thread, great question. I have not read the posts on page two though as I feel it is too easy to get bogged down on what we believe is right or wrong. Too close to religion for my liking.
I agree with those that have already linked sexual energy to any other type of energy. It can be very powerful to bring energy into sex, or should I say when making love. As I think most would agree the difference in the connection and how you feel when you embrace and harness your energy is if you are just simply having 'sex' or taking part in something that is far more emotional and spiritual.
I've been thinking for so long now there's needs to be a new revolution in the way people make love... and it's been in the fore front of my mind for the past few days. It's funny how this thread pop up at me (no pun lol) today... I think I need to go away and meditate.
Namasté X
I've been thinking for so long now there's needs to be a new revolution in the way people make love... and it's been in the fore front of my mind for the past few days.
What would you like to see in this revolution?
I too believe that there needs to be a revolution in the way people make love - a liberation from centuries of repression, and the very deep rooted feelings of guilt, fear and sin that are associated with sensuality and sexuality.
Perhaps tantra will lead the way if we could get enough people interested. I do all I can, but it seems to be a losing battle!
Sadly, and to one's immense regret, it seems that the world is going in the opposite direction if you read the news: more sexual repression, more fear, more psychosis, more wars, more rape, more violence, more stress, more illness, more frustrations, more unhappiness and more misery.
You don't see "free" love anywhere.
You see more and more religious fundamentalism in Islamic countries, where a girl risks being stoned to death for the smallest of things. Seems that today in the entire Islamic world including Turkey, western whabi educated mad mullahs and their 'moral brigade' has taken control and has imposed all sorts of sexually repressive legislation similar to Catholic Europe of the middle ages.
It is as if European Christian history is repeating itself in the Islamic world.
You hear more and more evangelical rhetoric coming out of the US and the Neo-cons, whose mind set is identical to the muslim fanatics that they are so opposed to.
However, if the question were along the lines of, “Is sex an expression of healing energy?” I would have to say that it is, absolutely. Healing is allowing all things that are not loving to be removed from your being. Sharing of yourself with another, entirely and lovingly, in the act of sex is certainly healthful and can be the highest form of healing!
Very nicely said, I would agree with that absolutely.
Good loving sex is certainly an expression of energy, and is definitely healing.
Masha
Yes, I would say " Good loving sex" in other words making love, but not sex itself, without true bond and bigger feelings, it can do more harm, not healing 
Yes, I would say " Good loving sex" in other words making love, but not sex itself, without true bond and bigger feelings, it can do more harm, not healing
Yes, "Good loving sex" is good and healing. I don't know about "true bonds" though, how would not having bonds do more harm?
I think that many of these bonds are acually the chains that bind, and the reason that there is so much sexual repression and unhappiness. As I see it, sexuality, ie the sexual feelings generated when in the presence of someone you fancy as well as the sexual act, involve energy, which flows between the partners, and the harmony generates a loving/healing vibration/energy to everyone. This sexual energy, given and received in honesty and unconditional love is healing.
When you make up rules/bonds over who, why and for what material benefit you will have sex, then I feel that you are holding yourself in bondage. If I say that "I will have sex with you, so long as you have sex with no one else and i'll fall on you like a ton of bricks the moment that you do!" then i'm imposing conditions/bonds, that will chain both of us, chains that have nothing to do with love or sexual healing energy.
As holos said: "Sharing of yourself with another, entirely and lovingly, in the act of sex is certainly healthful and can be the highest form of healing!"
What I was saying is, that for example if you are feeling like shagging someone, and you go out, find someone that looks good enough, take them home/car wherever, have sex and that's it, you are not going to tell me it will have anything to do with a great good healing energy?
What I was saying is, that for example if you are feeling like shagging someone, and you go out, find someone that looks good enough, take them home/car wherever, have sex and that's it, you are not going to tell me it will have anything to do with a great good healing energy?
Well, I wish shaging were that easy! But if it were to happen, I'd imagine that if there was honesty, respect and loving between us, then there would be some good healing energy generated from the sex.
why would there no be?
Energy does not care for social norms you know, nor for pieces of paper. Neither does sexual attraction or excitement, or sexual pleasure between persons - which I would say is the mother of all energies.
In fact, I'd say that most energy blockages and related health and psychological problems occur because of sexual repression of one form or another. The natural, normal energy flow (the yin and yang, the masculine and feminine) is considered "sinful", unlawful or un moral and hence not allowed to flow as it naturally would.
Er ... wait a min
Er ... how long has it been on this self-congratulatory thread since anybody mentioned that self-control and abstaining from sex either wholly or at least to a degree is not always (quote) "repression" - with all its religious connotations - but that kundalini is built up and expanded within the finer bodies by containment? Or that self-control, in most spiritual backgrounds, hints at this, even if the full technique and meaning isn't understood and delineated?
Containing the kundalini, not expending it, is classically said to lead to greater longevity; and the very energy intended to rise up the spinal altar in order to attain samadhi, by any term, is the very same energy expended in sex. So there are two sides to this.
I don't dismiss the idea that self-expression, in love, can be very healing such as emotionally. I'm just very surprised there's such a lack of acknowledgement, basic knowledge, and take-up here about what kundalini actually is - and that you either use it in one way, or in the other. It's like money, and you can't spend it on two things at once: you have to take your choice. Now, obviously the great mass of humanity take their instinctive, almost mindless choice; but for that reason - that it's the vast majority (and easy) 'way to go', it seems good to state the voice of the other, rarer opinion, as voiced by so many saints and mystics.
There's nothing more healing than building up the degree of kundalini or life-force within oneself.
V
I'm don't do tantra and have never consciously attached any healing energy to sex (perhaps I subconsciously do, because I often feel restored and beautiful), but as an added extra to nishira's post - I often accidentally think of penguins during orgasm. And purple. But not purple penguins.
Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Yes, in a male energy is released following orgasm with the loss of sperm, and as such abstaining from sex would preserve this energy.
However, a build up of sexual energy can also lead to all sorts of health and psychological problems. If I look at all the violence, wars, aggression and such like amongst men all over the world, I see repressed sexuality at the root of it.
For women this is not the case, so a women can have as many orgasms as she desires, without losing energy. A women loses energy from her periods, though this loss also has renewal based health benefits, and I believe these cycles are a reason that women generally have better health and immunity then men.
In connection with longevity, I believe that you will not find any evidence to suggest that pesons who are celibate live much longer then those who are not. Celibate monks and nuns are not necessarily more energetic or live longer or happier then their non-celibate couterparts, or the general public.
Mahatma Gandhi benefited from celibacy, as he could channel the energy into peaceful service, however not all people can or wish to do that. In terms of longevity, if you look at pictures and films around Gandhi's later life you would see that he looked his age - i.e abstaining didn't seem to be making him live longer.
In fact, many people believe that sex keeps you young in mind, body and spirit - the excitement, the passion releases hormones, endorphins and other such things that are benficial for the health of both partners.
This is why tantra and taoist love making traditions I believe are far better then celibacy. They allow the female to have lots of orgasms, so she can feel "restored and beautiful" as grosflower put it, and they allow the male to regulate is orgasms depending on his age/health, which determine the amount of energy he can expend. I've mentioned these earlier - from one of the Yellow Emperors 3 female sexual advisors.
Tantra and Tao allows for a deeper bonding between the partners, and the harmonious flow of yin and yang energies between them is healing spiritually, mentaly, emotionaly and physically.
Er ... how long has it been on this self-congratulatory thread since anybody mentioned that self-control and abstaining from sex either wholly or at least to a degree is not always (quote) "repression" - with all its religious connotations - but that kundalini is built up and expanded within the finer bodies by containment? Or that self-control, in most spiritual backgrounds, hints at this, even if the full technique and meaning isn't understood and delineated?
Containing the kundalini, not expending it, is classically said to lead to greater longevity; and the very energy intended to rise up the spinal altar in order to attain samadhi, by any term, is the very same energy expended in sex. So there are two sides to this.
I don't dismiss the idea that self-expression, in love, can be very healing such as emotionally. I'm just very surprised there's such a lack of acknowledgement, basic knowledge, and take-up here about what kundalini actually is - and that you either use it in one way, or in the other. It's like money, and you can't spend it on two things at once: you have to take your choice. Now, obviously the great mass of humanity take their instinctive, almost mindless choice; but for that reason - that it's the vast majority (and easy) 'way to go', it seems good to state the voice of the other, rarer opinion, as voiced by so many saints and mystics.
There's nothing more healing than building up the degree of kundalini or life-force within oneself.
V
Just as a side-issue, Gandhi didn't attain celibacy until he was 36 (from his autobiography). He also endured many hardships of course, which will have taken their toll. Hmm, his life is usually clothed in roseate hues, and one thing is very rarely mentioned, which he just very delicately touches on in his own life-story: His wife, by all accounts, was often an absolute banshee. 
Could be that his appearance was from being worn out by her?
V
Hi Folks
Personally I don't use the terms sexual or healing energy. To me the living life force that flows through all things is the same; Whether it's called Kundalini, Ki, Qi, Prana, Sekhem, The Holy spirit or whatever. There's just differences in the frequency levels it flows at and different modalities of channeling it.
I agree with JamesK's last post. Especially the longevity bit. People in the UK and elsewhere are living longer than ever before. It's not uncommon anymore to see people reaching their 90's or even 100. This isn't all down to celibacy or not ejaculating. Lost energy can be replaced, conciously or unconciously, luckily for us. If it couldn't teenage boys would be dropping like flies ;).
Spiritually I believe it's a good thing to loose some energy. It means we have to connect ourselves, conciously is the best way, to the life force that flows in, through and around us. Every time we do this we grow.
Keith
In the way I was taught, good sex is a unique healing energy in and of itself.
They key is to understand the definition of "good sex".
For me, good sex is when each partner focuses on giving him or herself to the other. When both are in a giving mode, they automatically become receivers as well. There is a natural cycle of energy that can form in the mutual giving and receiving process, which produces harmony and a unique healing energy.
It’s all about balance.
It’s all about balance.
Agreed! ...Tall three-legged bar stools on wheels ...or erm balcony ledges of multi-storey holiday apartments are particularly precarious for the midddle-aged for example.
.
Agreed! ...Tall three-legged bar stools on wheels ...or erm balcony ledges of multi-storey holiday apartments are particularly precarious for the midddle-aged for example.
.
:rollaugh::rollaugh::rollaugh: